Do we need a Boomerang instead of an BTR-82?

Yes, we continue the topic "Boomerang". Precisely because, as usual with us, 80% of the commenting mass did not understand anything, especially without complicating themselves with reading. However, the usual thing.

To continue the topic I was inspired by the next Personal Opinion of Mr. Aniral of the divan troops. In which he spoke so impressively that "all this is garbage, everyone is equal before the RPG." But because the "Boomerang" that the BTR-82 - no difference.

My God, and this is in the 21st century, and on “Military Review” such nonsense is being posted ...

Okay, let's go wheels in order.

RPG-7. Weapon Arabs and blacks. Well, militias in case of the last war. Volkssturm of the 21st century will look like this: AKM from warehouses and RPG-7 from there. What if you're lucky?

I immediately understand that whoever speaks here specifically in terms of the fact that RPG is a scrap against which there is no admission, this RPG is only seen on video. And to shoot ... Well, yes, why is it sofa?

My colleague Krivov and I were given a try two years ago. In the exercises where we shot. Misha - layout tank, 300 meters to her. The briefing was. All showed. Well, we fired, in accordance with the information received.

Of course not. But they had the notion that after such a shot they won’t let you get another one, if only the mentally retarded are on the other side.

So, gentlemen, couches, with all my heart I wish you to check on yourself how it is, an RPG against a tank. Not in computer shooters, but in kind. Blacks and Arabs sometimes succeed, but even they prefer the Tou.

Want to live...

Do not write nonsense, I beg you very much. RPG-7 (as well as AKM) today is the weapon of an African rogue, a rebel in the jungle and a pirate on a longboat. A smart modern army fighter with this thing may perhaps show something, but not for long.

Because in the tank or infantry fighting vehicle they are by no means fools, and they probably know how to use optics, cameras, thermal imagers and, most importantly, machine guns! And for their part, they will do everything so that you get the idea that the idea of ​​firing an RPG from a tank is not the best.

And God forbid that the understanding was 7,62 mm, and not 12,7.

In general, a disposable weapon is a disposable organism.

We’ll talk about serious things now. About whether we even need these "Boomerangs", for which I so advocated. True, the shadow of the Su-57 completely closed them, but nothing, let's try a second attempt. What if it works out?

So, in principle, we have a development and several assembled copies (ceremonial), sort of like for testing, wheeled armored personnel carrier K-16 and tracked infantry fighting vehicle K-17. Well, in the future, a whole bunch of other cars, both the combat plan, and special, repair and others.

What confuses many today is the size. On the dimensions of K-16, and arguments are built. But since the marshals and generals are couch, then all this does not look very logical.

Yes, K-16 is very good in terms of growth, that is, height. Higher tanks are obtained. Many drew attention to this. And besides, heavy, 32 tons.

Cons: High - which means it’s easier to get into. So we need a low and fast armored personnel carrier! But he already is! This is BTR-82A! Hooray!

And stuff like that.

Immediately, I note that not everything that is low is good.

Where is the place of armored personnel carriers in modern combat? And over there. Behind everyone. An armored personnel carrier is also a transporter in order to bring infantry to the landing line and land it. Tanks went, infantry went, and only armored personnel carriers crawled behind them, shooting from a safe distance for every little thing. Supporting the infantry, so to speak.

About the same thing will happen in the city, only infantry will go first, then tanks, and only then armored boxes.

And no one will run on them with grenade launchers in the first place, because either the infantry will shoot everything (and they will try to mentally), or the tankers will arrange a local apocalypse in a single village.

BTR at the forefront of the offensive - nonsense. And defense is also nonsense. Its place is where size is far from important.

Well, if someone confuses the APC and BMPT - this is his own business.

Now go through the competitor.

BTR-82A. In fact, as I said in the first article, this is the same BTR-60. The differences are minimal, and the main essence of the car has not changed over the past 70 years. A little added armor, horsepower to the engine, weapons increased. But essentially it’s the same BTR-60. With its main drawback, which is impossible to eliminate without changing the essence of the machine.

We look at the photo.

Afghanistan. Armored infantry.

Syria. Armored infantry.

Donbass, Ossetia ... The list goes on, but the essence will be the same: the infantry rides on top of the armor.

Stupidity? Panache? No. The desire to live. Sniper ... Well, yes. But not all. Machine gun? Well yes. But not a very accurate weapon. Mina under the bottom? Well yes…

With all three troubles, the situation is the same - you fly head first and think: if you shoot, then where?

But if the mine explodes under the bottom, and the landing is not on the armor, but inside, then the practice of Afghanistan has proved that the APC turns into a good and comfortable mass grave on wheels.

And since over the past 70 years the BTR-60 (70, 80, 82 with various letters) has not changed for the better, then here is the result. Infantry rides on top of the armor. Substituting bullets, fragments, but stubbornly not wanting to die in an iron can, completely not holding a mine explosion.

And no matter how you upgrade the armored personnel carriers of this family, placing a diesel engine, adding 30-mm guns, thickening armor, introducing anti-shatter loot and modern means of aiming and observation, soldiers on the march will invariably crawl out on the armor.

Personal opinion: no matter how you tune the VAZ, it was like an old TAZ, and it will go to the landfill with a basin. As the BTR-60 became obsolete by the 80s of the last century, so no matter how much you upgrade, it will remain an old can. A deadly old can. For the crew and the landing.

But there is one more minus. Big.

Now, everyone who served in the Union, come on, refresh your memory and do not let lie. What was the fighter dragging on himself? We don’t even remember about the "harness", this thing was exclusively necessary for carrying the raincoat-tent. And so the outfit is more than modest: a shovel, a flask, a gas mask, a cartridge pouch for shops, a pouch for grenades.

It was possible, with all this goodness, to get into the armored personnel carrier. And get out if something happens.

Today in the "Warrior" is more than doubtful. And if in the heavy equipment of a sapper ... It’s simply unrealistic.

In addition, this side hole ... It’s so convenient to jump out of it on the side of the armored (conditionally) hull, right under the bullets ...

Well, yes, but the APC is floating. A very useful option, especially in Syria and the Donbass. That's where buoyancy just helped out.

And a few words about armor.

Let us all agree that the BTR-82 does not have armor per se. The machine body can easily be flashed with an ordinary armor-piercing rifle bullet. From an average distance.

But the main enemy of the APC is not a sniper, although it can also drink blood. And not an RPG consumable. The main enemy of the BTR-82 is a colleague with either a heavy machine gun or an automatic cannon. Or - the Arabic version - a pickup truck, in the body of which both a gun and a machine gun are easily stuffed. Fast, inexpensive, efficient.

Pickup seems even worse to me. The review is better, speed and maneuverability will take its toll. And oligophrenic with a heavy machine gun will be a big problem. It is clear that the same disposable thing as a fellow with RPG, but it can do even more efficient things than a grenade launcher.

You must admit that it is much easier to get on an APC from a machine gun or a gun than from an RPG. And from a greater distance. And on a moving target.

So, sitting in an armored personnel carrier, you really should prefer three or four suicide bombers with RPGs than one psycho with a DShK on a pickup truck.

And so I turn to the Boomerang. So calmly go around. You didn’t get the understanding that in the event of a normal war with the saturation of the theater of war with modern means of battle, these 20-30 centimeters in height are nothing?

I have such an understanding.

And at the same time there is an understanding that not a low silhouette will save from missiles and grenades, but protection. Optoelectronic detection and suppression systems, dynamic protection, active protection systems. By the way, our potential KAZ is working out in full, and soon the army will install army jeeps and fuel trucks.

What can Boomerang offer in this regard?

A lot actually.

For example, a V-shaped bottom, initial mine protection. Next - a suspended floor and energy-absorbing chairs. All this greatly increases the chances of survival for paratroopers. And considering how popular mines, guided land mines and other IEDs are becoming all over the world, what losses regular armies suffer from homemade products, survival when such a charge is detonated is our everything.

Armor. K-16 is capable of carrying armor that can withstand not only a bullet from a machine gun or rifle, but also a larger caliber. And with additional complexes you can talk about missiles and grenades.

Finally, the frankly miserable exit from the side or top of the hull remains in the past. And you can land as a BMP, from the stern, at least minimally hiding behind the car body.

And yes, the K-16 can provide a more spacious landing compartment. That in modern conditions is useful even in principle, because there is still a difference between conscripts of the sample of the 70-80s of the last century and today's contractors. In terms of weight and size characteristics.

Actually, it's not just us. It's like that all over the world. Everywhere the army people became ... larger. Accordingly, the size of armored vehicles is also growing. Look at the same "Stryker", "Boxer", "Freccia" - well, they are all clearly not BTR-82. It can be said that combat vehicles have grown along with people, which need to transport not only people, but also ammunition and ammunition. There are never too many cartridges and grenades.

Move on. Boomerang is a very promising platform on which you can create many useful machines. From a wheeled tank (which for some reason we are skeptical of) to the KShM, sanitary and other important things. This is especially true for sanitary facilities. MT-LB for a long time does not correspond to modern combat realities.

And just a couple of words about the ability to swim. Yes, the BTR-60 was a "chip". It was presented as something excellent, "unparalleled," as it is now fashionable to say.

How important this option is today is very difficult to say. Somehow, the crossing of the Rhine, the Oder, the English Channel has completely receded into the background, most likely, there’s no need to fight there. Although, of course, some of our audience, which “we can repeat,” would very much advocate for this.

In general, the Boomerang can swim. But it’s better not to engage in this anachronism, but to develop more engineering troops that are more useful in this regard, which can throw not only heavy equipment across the water barrier, but also fuel and lubricants, ammunition and other useful things needed on the battlefield.

Mass ... Well, yes, 32 tons - this is not 15 for you in the BTR-82, but there are so many nuances at once ... And the main one is the engine. From what the BTR-82 carries, the KAMAZ "eight" of 300 hp. the maximum that can still be obtained is 20-30 forces. Hence the complete "stop" to the further development of the armored personnel carrier. Or you need to come up with a new engine that fits into the poor volumes of the BTR-82.

The Boomerang has a YaMZ-780 multi-fuel diesel engine with a capacity of 750 liters. pp., which is very significant, and the ratio of forces per ton of mass is even steeper than that of the BTR-82. 24 versus 20. And the Yaroslavl engine can still be twisted in terms of modifications. So the hefty K-16 car is no slower than an APC.

Armament ... In the basic configuration, almost parity, if we compare exactly the BTR-82AM and K-16. But if you look in perspective, then I personally really like the variation on the theme of the 57-mm “Baikal”. Such a gun can not only carry pickups and classmates to the state of scrap metal, but even offend the tank on board.

Too much? C'mon, I don’t understand at all such a term as “excessive armor penetration”, I immediately recall history with the 57-mm anti-tank gun Grabin, which was first discontinued for this reason, and then urgently returned when the Tigers appeared.

All over the world this tendency to increase the caliber of support has long been going. And if earlier it was 20-25 mm, now it’s 30, and even 40 millimeters. So 57 mm is quite normal, and a wheeled tank with a 125 mm cannon also looks good.

Here we can recall that wheeled vehicles have a higher speed, and it is not necessary to carry on trawls, saving a resource. And the fact that the "minibus to the battlefield" as a class of application of technology is becoming obsolete. And to replace it, just such a heavy vehicle is coming, capable of not only delivering infantry to the battlefield, but also really supporting it with fire and armor.

Yes, not like a tank can do it, but not like an armored personnel carrier with its 14,5 mm under-machine gun.

Most modern, unsurprising military experts predict the war of the future as a multi-media mobile confrontation. That is, the war is not in hypothetical fields or near the heights, but rather around and around cities, which will play the role of strongholds.

It is enough to look at the latest civil wars in Syria and Ukraine. That is exactly what happened there. There were virtually no front lines, but mines, ATGMs, ambushes and raids became common practice. Everyday.

Accordingly, the more versatile and multi-functional a combat vehicle will be, the greater the chances of a motorized rifle unit to survive and win. Modularity is everything for tomorrow’s war.

And here “Boomerang” looks very beautiful in perspective of installing KAZ, dynamic protection, additional reservation schemes and other things.

In general, around the world, ATGMs have become quite commonplace. It’s only for us that some of the most mossy part of readers are praying all on RPG-7, and even these representatives appeared at representatives of various military groups in the Middle East.

Moreover, the war on the warheads gave rise to the phenomenon of ATGM mercenaries. Experienced fighters, on the account of which there are many destroyed tanks of various military formations. And the same “Tou”, although archaism, but is better than RPG-7. And I’m silent about Javelin.

Although ours are not inferior, they are in many ways superior to foreign models. But the protection in the form of lattice screens on the same BTR-82AM looks like bed nets on tanks in Berlin in 1945.

In general, heavy armored personnel carriers are actively designing and building in the world. USA, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Singapore, Serbia ...

And who does not design - he simply buys.

And we have all the “shifts to the right” and corruption scandals. And we are building huge “military” churches. Instead of Boomerangs. And the panel with the first persons orders the Ministry of Defense. Instead of shells.

Strange decisions, to be honest. And Russian soldiers in Syria still ride "on the armor", and not inside it, because the fear of being blown up by a mine is more than getting a bullet from a sniper. A sniper may miss, but a good land mine ...

And how many do not tune the BTR-60, there will not be a good result. Just because the concept of the machine itself is 70 years old. And this, accordingly, is not the level of today, but of the last century, alas.

But we are in a crisis. We save. So that there is something to steal, what to build various dubious buildings and "patriotic" parks around the country, to come up with another type of form, and so on. Well, these strange things like underwater nuclear drones and other "unparalleled" incomprehensible, but not cheap gizmos.

And it’s time to think about the strategy and tactics of tomorrow and to develop new technology for it. And not like ours: first, something is being developed, then an understanding of how this technique can be applied begins, then conversations about the “huge export potential” begin, and then that’s it. A curtain.

We hardly need such an approach in general, do we?

Comments

[The popuas]

Here is the syllable

[Per se.]

Quote: Popuas

Here is the syllable

Indeed, he asks - "Oh yes Pushkin! Oh yes son of a bitch!" Here, only, the novel in its frank pathos contradicts itself. We take from the text.

Do not write nonsense, I beg you very much. RPG-7 (as well as AKM) today is the weapon of an African rogue, a rebel in the jungle and a pirate on a longboat. A smart modern army fighter with this thing may perhaps show something, but not for long.

It must be remembered right away that the United States is creating a full-scale production of reusable RPG-7 anti-tank grenade launchers, which were developed in the Soviet Union in the 60s of the last century and have since become the most popular type of hand grenade launchers in the world (this was reported by the Defense Aerospace portal) . The American version of the RPG-7 differs from its Russian counterpart only in that it has an M4 assault rifle stock, an AR-15 pistol grip, and a Picatinny rail. Here is the weapon of the "homeless" for you. Next to Roman.

Where is the place of armored personnel carriers in modern combat? And over there. Behind everyone. An armored personnel carrier is also a carrier for transporting infantry to the line of landing and landing it.

So why would he be "Mouse", heavy, huge, complex and expensive to make? Also, did the "Boomerang" go into service, did it go through a full cycle of tests for this?

In Roman we read that the BTR-82A differs little from the BTR-60 ... Literally, according to Roman's text "In fact, as I said in the first article, this is the same BTR-60". So, I personally had the opportunity to climb and ride the BTR-60PB, no, dear Roman, with the BTR-82A this is far from the same thing. So you can safely say that in fact any modern rifle is still the same musket, the principle is one - a barrel, gunpowder, a bullet. Well, okay ...

Now, the "landing on the armor" that has already set the teeth on edge. What, the men went on the attack like that? No, this is a movement in a column, which is subject to a surprise attack. So you can quickly jump, dismount, take up all-round defense, minimize damage from a possible explosion. It is necessary to distinguish here between police equipment, anti-terrorist operations against militants using guerrilla tactics in attacks on military columns, and a war against a full-fledged army (alliance of armies) with all types of troops. MRAP technology (English mine resistant ambush protected - protected from undermining and ambush attacks, mine resistant ambush protected), is just right for police, anti-terrorist operations, but this technology invariably increases the height of the vehicle, making such equipment more vulnerable to hitting the sides.

Also, on the topic "the next Personal Opinion of the master anirala sofa troops ", there is no invulnerable technology, dear Roman, just the" sons "that have not seen dirt and blood, dream of seeing a thick-skinned armored personnel carrier, where you can sit out with a can of beer and air conditioning. Here, just, any armored personnel carrier is not a bomb shelter, get out into the light God, for battle, you still have to, or burn alive in the thickest armor, or get a "shrapnel" in the forehead at the side of your own "invulnerable" armored personnel carrier, fire at this time its possible and desired by many KAZ.

[Alekseev]

Quote: Per se.

no invulnerable equipment, dear Roman,

As "aniral anirala" with a fair amount of seniority, though not on the couch, I completely agree.
Repeatedly repeated, including on the forum, that the BTT and the armored personnel carriers, too, should be different in tasks.
For some civilians, you can give a simple example: KamAZ is a good car, but it is impossible to do without gazelles and lawns.
The illusion that in

Quote: Per se.

thick-skinned armored personnel carrier, where you can sit out with a can of beer and air conditioning.

stupid.
Analysts of all kinds should know that the most powerful defense is attacked by infantry on foot, tanks move in the intervals of its battle formation, no one is hiding behind them, since this is not a terrorist's house, it is dangerous because they hit the tank, cover all the compartment that "clutched" behind him.
So on the march, it’s one thing when the Barmalei put a mine and shot from the AK, and otherwise when the aircraft strikes. MRAP is needed there, and there is ZRAK, maneuver, dispersal, aerosols, etc.

[Per se.]

That's the point, Alexey, we need different equipment, we need different tactics. Finally, there is a different geographical environment, different types of combat, and the hostilities themselves are different, one thing is the protection of military columns (where there will be airborne vehicles, truck cranes, fuel trucks), another is a battle in the city, a battle from the march, when forcing a water barrier. Also, in addition to understanding the protection in thick armor, there is such a thing as maneuverability, squat. Sometimes, the latter is more likely to save a life than being in a clumsy, "two-story behemoth." There is no need to lump everything together, that's what we're talking about.

[Kalmar]

Quote: Per se.

Now, the "landing on armor" has already set the teeth on edge. What, the guys went on the attack like that? No, this is a movement in a column, which may be unexpectedly attacked. So you can quickly jump, dismount, take up an all-round defense, minimize damage from a possible explosion.

An amateurish question arises. In the convoy, the landing party rides on armor. In battle, the landing force runs in front of the armor. So, why armor then at all? Isn't it easier to make a "convertible" without boards? Height decreases, weight decreases, but otherwise everything is the same.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Kalmar

Isn't it easier to make a "convertible" without boards?

Simpler.
And you can also educate normal commanders who will drive the infantry into place. In the "landing". But it's much harder

[timokhin-aa]

And you can also educate normal commanders who will drive the infantry into place. In the "landing". But it's much harder

Especially when you need to transport 15 people on it. It’s not easy at all.

In general, Skoromorkhov is right in this case. The principle of "women give birth to new" should remain in the past together with the technology that was invented under this principle. For the same amers, the LAV-25 is simply forbidden to be used as an armored personnel carrier, only as an armored reconnaissance vehicle.
Due to flimsy armor protection.
And he has it no worse than that of the BTR-80/82.
Those same Americans with their experience of combined arms combat in recent history, our armored personnel carriers would simply not be considered as military vehicles.

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Especially when you need to transport 15 people on it. It’s not easy at all.

It will be necessary, and so much will be driven. Indeed, in unpleasant weather, when the threat of mines disappears for some reason, the personnel are perfectly rammed

Quote: timokhin-aa

In general, Skoromorkhov is right in this case

What about the need for better protection for an APC? Here is right.

As for RPGs and the influence of size on the likelihood of damage, no.

[timokhin-aa]

It will be necessary, and so much will be driven. Indeed, in unpleasant weather, when the threat of mines disappears for some reason, the personnel are perfectly rammed

Especially considering how much property is lying around in the "landing" during long exits. And in general it's great. There, two of them are just lying down and that's it.

What about the need for better protection for an APC? Here is right.

It is still necessary to think - and whether the armored personnel carrier "Boomerang".

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Especially considering how much property is lying around in the "landing" during long exits.

And it too .. It all depends on the weather. Well, from the activity of the enemy. As soon as the weather was good and the enemy died down, there was immediately a danger of mine and there was no place in the landing.

Quote: timokhin-aa

It is still necessary to think - and whether the armored personnel carrier "Boomerang".

Armored personnel carrier.
Because the BMP functions cannot be performed. For wheeled and limited in maneuverability.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: timokhin-aa

In general, Skoromorkhov is right in this case.

Quote: Spade

What about the need for better protection for an APC? Here is right.

The author scolds the armored personnel carrier of the BTR, but praises the pickups with a machine gun, where there is no armor at all.
Also another curse of the side exits, they say if you land from behind, then the landing is covered with armor. Who shoots at the armored personnel carrier? car in front? If a convoy is fired at (which is accompanied by armored personnel carriers), then the shooting will be from the flank, that is, the exit from the back is just under the bullets. Ideally, there should be side exits and a rear one too, and which one the landing party will use will decide for itself.
And undermining an armored personnel carrier in a mine is less dangerous for him than for a tank or infantry fighting vehicle.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Bad_gr

Who shoots at the armored personnel carrier? ahead of the car?

Enemy infantry. Frontier dismounting.

Quote: Bad_gr

If shelling a column (which is accompanied by armored personnel carriers)

The columns must be accompanied by MRAPs. And when firing, it is necessary not to rush the infantry, but at high speed to get out of it

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Spade

Enemy infantry. Frontier dismounting.

Quote: Spade

The columns must be accompanied by MRAPs.

I agree. But for 2 years of Afghanistan, I saw armored personnel carriers escorted by columns, MRAPs did not see a single one. And almost always, the enemy from the flank.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bad_gr

And undermining an armored personnel carrier in a mine is less dangerous for him than for a tank or infantry fighting vehicle.

BMP-2 after a mine explosion, inside view towards the engine compartment (driver's seat on the left) (p. Kishim.)

[Per se.]

Quote: Kalmar

So, why then armor at all?

An armor-piercing bullet, especially a large-caliber bullet, will pierce through any body armor, but there are fragments, there are non-armor-piercing bullets, there are hits at a tangent and at the end, so a bulletproof vest and a helmet are at least desirable, these are additional chances to survive. Of course, you can spin without armor, the same pickup truck with a machine gun, like a modern "cart" is an example of this. Try to get in. It is interesting that people argue with the same Oleg Kaptsov about the uselessness of "battleships", in general, armoring ships, and they are ready to "lie down" for a heavy infantry fighting vehicle or a thick-armored armored personnel carrier ... Just don't take it at your own expense.

I have already said that the technique is different. Here is Roman "harnessed" for the "Boomerang", but for God's sake! This miracle is quite suitable as a police, counterguerrilla equipment, especially to disperse the crowd at demonstrations with one look. It will also come in handy for escorting military columns, it would be useful to us at one time in Afghanistan, as an option. By the way, our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are undoubtedly the best in the world, and in Afghanistan they were not originally intended for a war on the roads, they were created for another war.

Now directly about the armor, about the protection of the infantry. If we talk about equipment that should interact with tanks, in my understanding (to your question), this is heavy equipment on a single tank base. For example, T-72 / T-90 tanks, and as specialized fire support next to or even in front of BMPT tanks (like "Terminator"), in the second line there are heavy armored personnel carriers (for example, BMO-T on a tank base). Here, only, the heavy armored personnel carrier here is no longer an "armored bus" for 10-12 people, but a well-protected transport for an assault group of 5-6 people. A reduction in the landing will allow the vehicle to be optimized in terms of dimensions and protection, create more comfortable conditions, and minimize losses in the event of an armored personnel carrier being hit with a landing party inside. I repeat this, for the equipment that should work with tanks, go on the attack.

All this does not cancel the classic infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, such as the BMP-3 or BTR-82A, but they already have a slightly different task. As for heavy infantry fighting vehicles, in my "sofa" opinion, this is good only for police equipment. The Anglo-Saxons also produced their Bradleys and Warriors, which were no match for our BMP-1/2/3, but they did quite well in expeditionary strategy and colonial tactics.

[Kalmar]

Thanks for the detailed answer, interesting.

But my question was a little different. Armor is only useful if it is between a fighter and someone who threatens that fighter. When a fighter sits on the armor (and the video reports give the impression that they haven’t been riding inside our armored vehicles for a long time, only on horseback), from it (the armor), it turns out no good. I’m also ironic about this.

[Per se.]

Quote: Kalmar

I’m also ironic about this.

In the army (and navy), there is always something to be ironic about. Sometimes it is a pity that "overland fuel oil under the solid oil" is not always understood as "naval humor."

[Lopatov]

Quote: Per se.

This miracle will completely come down as a police, counter-guerrilla technique, especially, to disperse the crowd at demonstrations with one look. Suitable for escorting military columns

There are MRAPs for this.

Quote: Per se.

All this does not cancel the classic BMP and BTR, such as the BMP-3 or BTR-82A, but they already have a slightly different task.

What?
To bring infantry to the line of landing on the armor of tanks?

[Per se.]

Quote: Spade

There are MRAPs for this.

So in "Boomerang" this technology is directly used.

"Trough" enhances protection against detonation, and it also increases the height of the vehicle, substituting the sides. Here, and choose what will be more relevant, protection from a landmine "barmaley" (which he can lay more powerful) in a military column, or protection of a lateral projection in a classic battle.

Quote: Spade

To bring infantry to the line of landing on the armor of tanks?

I specifically identified a bunch of tank-BMPT-heavy APCs. Classic BMPs, such as BMP-3 or their development BMD-4M, are excellent universal machines for raids, marching throws, general support and transportation. Otherwise, I will repeat what Roman already stated.

Where is the place of armored personnel carriers in modern combat? And over there. Behind everyone. An armored personnel carrier is also a carrier for transporting infantry to the line of landing and landing it.

Just for this, the very BTR-82A will do just fine.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Per se.

So in "Boomerang" this technology is directly used.

??
It is not used there.

Quote: Per se.

I specifically identified a bunch of tank-BMPT-heavy APCs. Classic BMPs, such as BMP-3 or their development BMD-4M, are excellent universal machines for raids, marching throws, general support and transportation. Otherwise, I will repeat what Roman already stated.

Understood nothing.
Both armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles must take the infantry to the dismounting line. Cheap "Pokemon" can also take you to the line of landing on the armor of tanks

[bk0010]

Does anyone know if you can put junk in Boomerang at the bottom of the "trough"? How much space is lost!

[starshina]

For kamikaze drones, it doesn’t matter in which row .. The BTR-82A is long outdated !!!

[mvg]

The Anglo-Saxons produced their "Bradleys" and "Warrior", which were not suitable for our BMP-1/2/3

Excuse me, but what exactly are our best armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles in the world? You can not argue? Maybe there are examples of successful military battles?

[bk0010]

The task of the armored personnel carrier is to bring the infantry alive to the battlefield, even in the event of shelling and bombardment. During the Second World War, we had to the front line, because of these factors, the battalion reached the regiment. For this, the armored personnel carrier has armor. But under the armor it’s bad: it’s crowded, stuffy, swayed and generally depressed. Therefore, the fighters climb up: they may not be killed there, but here it’s bad already now. It is possible to make an armored personnel carrier the size of a bus, with air conditioning and LCD screens, but it will turn out to be very expensive and heavy.

[starshina]

Then why do they need to transport infantry in Kamaz?

[bk0010]

Kamaz - only on the road, this is unacceptable. If you can’t leave the roads, then yes - MRI will be better: cheaper and more secure.

[Grits]

Quote: Kalmar

An amateurish question arises. In the convoy, the landing party rides on armor. In battle, the landing force runs in front of the armor. So, why armor then at all? Isn't it easier to make a "convertible" without boards? Height decreases, weight decreases, but otherwise everything is the same.

I, too, have long gone to such an event. if no one drives inside an armored personnel carrier, then why do we need a box for an assault? I won’t be surprised that if the Boomerang goes into the army, then soldiers will also be sitting on top of his armor. As before, by inertia. Or maybe they’ll come up with some excuse.
Then, indeed, an armored personnel carrier is not needed to escort columns and simply to deliver soldiers. A certain platform is open. With a minimum side, so that they do not fall out and it is easier to jump off. Here you have an overview and other things that are so lacking inside the troop compartment. They sit with their backs to each other, turn their heads, weapons at the ready, ready to jump at any time without a bag. The question is - will the infantry agree to sit on such a vehicle, or will they still climb on the armored personnel carrier?

[starshina]

Maybe it's better to transport infantry in helicopters quickly and safely?

[bk0010]

Fast, but not safe (the "partners" have air superiority) and extremely expensive.

[alexmach]

In general, the design idea was going, was it going somewhere?

Was it all already somewhere?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: alexmach

Was it all already somewhere?

It was. But practice has shown that a roof is necessary, otherwise an ordinary grenade (or a Molotov cocktail) puts an end to both the landing and the car.
And more than once it was said that no one sits on the armor constantly, but looking at circumstances. They are sitting on the armor, if there is an option of undermining under the car, but if there is evidence that the mines will be on the sidelines, then the landing will sit inside, even if it is very hot outside.

[alexmach]

This is when fighting in the city. But on the whole I agree, I think the proposal for a car without a roof is also not sound.

[bk0010]

One of the most important tasks of the APC was to pass through the lesion, without a roof - nothing.

[alexmach]

And now this requirement is also relevant.

[Eurosceptic]

An armored personnel carrier is a vehicle for delivering fighters to the battlefield. Accordingly, on the one hand, the requirements are cross-country ability, since there may not be roads as such, and secondly, protection against threats. What threats can be in the rear? 1. Artillery - here we need anti-fragmentation armor. 2. Air raid - again, anti-fragmentation armor, and ideally - an anti-aircraft machine gun that could work in team with an air defense vehicle acting as a target designator. 3. Mine danger - it is less, because no one interferes with clearing the path before starting to move. 4. Enemy fighters, infantry, tanks - this is not an enemy, they should not be on the way, so this is a minimal danger. And what other requirements - capacity in the first place. So the ideal armored personnel carrier is something like the American M-113

[Army soldier2]

Well done, Per se. (Sergey), removed from the tongue!
I will not evaluate Citizen Skomorokhov; I did something stupid about three years ago - and they immediately banned me. But if pickups with DShKs are so good (as per the text), can they be put into service with the RA instead of armored personnel carriers and boomerangs?
And about the RPG. No one disputes that this is a weapon of the middle of the last century. But, Mr. Skomorokhov, you "tried" a couple of years ago, and in the distant 80th, on GOS, I shot it perfectly. You need to be able ...
How much the level of VO has fallen in the last 3-5 years!

[Ded_Mazay]

Quote: Per se.

We read from Roman that the BTR-82A differs little from the BTR-60 ... Literally, according to Roman's text "In fact, as I said in the first article, this is still the same BTR-60." So, personally I had a chance to climb and ride the BTR-60PB, no, dear Roman, with the BTR-82A it is far from the same thing.

And how do they differ from each other? Is there an equally useless reservation and no mine protection?

[starshina]

They are long outdated ...

[alexmach]

And how do they differ from each other? Is there an equally useless reservation and no mine protection?

What about higher ground clearance and larger wheels?

[Ded_Mazay]

Quote: alexmach

And how do they differ from each other? Is there an equally useless reservation and no mine protection?

What about higher ground clearance and larger wheels?

A Niva with a higher ground clearance and larger wheels ceases to be a Niva and becomes a 200m Land Cruiser? No. So it is here ...

[alexmach]

So 82a like BTR didn’t cease to be and Kruzer did not.

[Ded_Mazay]

That's it. As was a tin can and remained ...

[alexmach]

Excuse me, are you essentially ready to offer something? I've read articles and comments on them, I come to the conclusion that engineering is at an impasse. What should be the requirements for the car and what the economy will pull me, for example, for example, it’s not obvious at all.

[Ded_Mazay]

Design Bureau has already offered - "Boomerang". Does he bother you with something?

[alexmach]

The same as all the other commentators. The absence of troops 6 years after the premiere of him at the parade. And one can only speculate about the reasons for this, and these reasons are clearly not someone's reluctance, or even the price (they could always buy a ceremonial battalion kit or a kit for military tests, Yaseni, Su-57, Tu-160 are being built).

So the car either has problems with the characteristics of something that does not meet somewhere, and this is not necessarily the notorious dimensions, or with the organization of production / import substitution.

And again about the price. I checked with Wikipedia, for 2018 in the army 1600 BTR-82a and another fifteen hundred BTR-80. This is a total of more than 3000 armored personnel carriers, it is clear that everything cannot be replaced all at once, so the remaining 80 will still be operated for a long time. Probably worth the remaining 80s and upgrade at least to 82am ...

[Bad_gr]

Quote: alexmach

So the car either has problems with the characteristics of something that does not meet somewhere,

We came to the conclusion that the case does not quite correspond to:

".... BTR and BMP" Boomerang "will receive a new hull with increased buoyancy. In addition, the displacement of the armored vehicle will also increase ....."
https://rg.ru/2020/04/06/bumerang-poluchit-novyj-korpus-s-usilennoj-zashchitoj.html

[alexmach]

And it took 5 years? Well, it’s obvious that it’s even just in time that somewhere the non-pushable is not being pushed in ...

[Ded_Mazay]

Almost any processing of the machine, if I am not mistaken, leads to the fact that state tests have to start from the beginning.

[alexmach]

Any serious, as mentioned, for example, a change in displacement, probably yes.

[Ded_Mazay]

It seems to me that if you are really guessing, then it is not about the reasons for the delay in bringing to readiness and state tests, but about the reasons for the false start with the presentation. Who, for some reason, came up with a "bright idea" to roll out these "promising samples" to the parade, which are still to be finished and finished?
As for 80/82, yes, they are apparently with us for a long time. Only now the idea of ​​\u80b\u82bmodernizing 80k in 80 seems to me a waste of money. It seems to me more rational to displace the armored personnel carrier 82 from the troops with the supply of new equipment. And the XNUMXs released in this way are either sent for storage, or upgraded to XNUMXx but for sale on order, or converted into vehicles for the needs of the Ministry of Emergencies or Forest Protection, which is even better.

[alexmach]

It seems to me that if you are really guessing, then it is not about the reasons for the delay in bringing to readiness and state tests, but about the reasons for the false start with the presentation. Who, for some reason, came up with a "bright idea" to roll out these "promising samples" to the parade, which are still to be finished and finished?

I agree. Most likely, very crude samples were rolled out. And this applies to Kurgan and Boomerang and Almaty.
The reasons are probably ideological in nature.
70th anniversary of victory + reunion with Crimea + Donbas. Patriotic upsurge + propaganda.
The most interesting thing was with the Su-57, then I think it was called the T-50. It seems that even Putin spoke there in the style of "if the plane is not ready to participate, there is no need to drive it to the parade" and he was not there, in my opinion he was shown next year. And here it is the SU-57 with specific plans for supply and production, but none of the armored vehicles shown there is ready for production.

either remodel into machines for the needs of the Ministry of Emergencies or forest protection, which is even better.

So there is still a bunch of BTR-70 in storage for these purposes. + MTLB ...

[lucul]

Here is the syllable

It's true )))
The author also forgot to mention the obvious ... As the experience of Syria has shown, any wheeled armored vehicles weighing more than 20 tons, when pulling to the side of the road, become a motionless piece of metal stuck in the mud after rain. This is true for all MRAPs, both for American ones, for Turkish ones, for ours ... But the BTR-82 does not have such a problem - the lack of patency, due to the large mass of the BTR-82, does not suffer))) And it is quite capable of moving along rough terrain after the rain. And this is a very important nuance))))

[strannik1985]

And this is a very important nuance

Typhoon-K?

[Snail N9]

And I, the black Ukrainians with Kalash and BK drawers on their heads like ....
And on the topic .... in defense of the RPG-7: in the city, the battle is taking place in the near and middle zone - at the forefront in close contact, just fighters with RPG-7 firing from windows, basements, hatches, etc., and none of them quickly hiding they don’t sit there and don’t wait for an answer — at the same time, several people fired from an RPG and a running one, but from convenient places from a distance of 1-2 km, they are just covered from the ATGM. Something like this. In vain the author rolls a barrel on an RPG - he fired at a target once, went nuts from it and, under the impression, wrote this nonsense about RPGs, saying that this is an "ineffective" weapon for suicide bombers, yeah ..... go forgot how much, guys from the Hitler Youth and the Volkssturm set fire to Soviet tanks in urban battles, with relatively primitive fausts ....

[Kalmar]

Quote: Snail N9

in defense of RPG-7: in the city, the battle is in the near and middle zone, at the front edge in close contact just the fighters with RPG-7 are firing from windows, cellars, hatches, etc.

In theory, this increases the value of equipment, which can be supplied with all kinds of KAZs in proper quantities. Those. more of an argument in favor of the Boomerangs, no?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Snail N9

fighters with RPG-7 firing from windows, cellars, hatches, etc.

It’s not very good for health to shoot like that

[bk0010]

Quote: Snail N9

just fighters with RPG-7 firing from windows, cellars, hatches

The RPG has a problem with this: you need 2 meters of empty space in the back, otherwise you will be fucked up by the exhaust itself.

Quote: Snail N9

and fast hiding

And this is the problem: a shot from an RPG resembles a hit on the ear with a board, disorienting, you won’t immediately escape.

Quote: Snail N9

how many guys from the Hitler Youth and Volkssturm burned Soviet tanks in urban battles, relatively primitive Fausts ....

Not as many as they usually think, 200-250 out of 1800 lost, rather strained by the fact that the kid can destroy the tank at all.

[mvg]

Not as many as usually thought, 200-250 out of 1800 lost

Then we recall the two Chechen wars ... and thousands of BTT burned. Syria and several thousand MBT and armored personnel carriers in cities ... Is that better?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: mvg

two Chechen wars ... and thousands of BTT burned. Syria and several thousand MBT and armored personnel carriers in cities ...

What are "thousands" - "millions" of burnt infantry fighting vehicles.
With the illiterate use of technology, if the enemy needs it, it will be burned: you will find a bunch of firewood and matches even in the most backward country.

[georgigennadievitch]

And this was not because the tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are bad, but because the personnel and commanders were not trained in combat and operations in the city. In conditions of dense urban development, it is grenade throwers that pose the greatest danger to armored vehicles. from a corner, from a gateway ... yes to the side ... How is it with V. Terkin? - the tank is only formidable in appearance, but in reality it is deaf and blind ... In the city ahead, dismounted motorized riflemen with artillery and aviation gunners, sapper units and flamethrowers should attack, and tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, etc. must act as a mobile fire weapon for their fire support, destruction of enemy tanks, guns, pillboxes, defense units by direct fire, under the cover of fire of motorized riflemen on call and do not climb forward themselves.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: lucul

This is true for all MRAPs, for the American, for the Turkish, for ours ... But the BTR-82 has

That's just in Syria and the BTR-82 stuck.

[starshina]

With the advent of drones, large armored personnel carriers are out of date forever!

[bk0010]

Why all of a sudden? A small drone will not fly far and the charge is small, it will not hit at least a slightly protected target. And the big one is expensive and easily goes astray. Well, even if cluster munitions with self-aiming elements did not bury them, then drones have no chance.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: Starshina

With the advent of drones, large armored personnel carriers are out of date forever!

The events in Libya unambiguously hint that no (and in the last offensive in Idlib, after the number of air defense installations there grew more than 4 units). The main thing is not to neglect air defense.

[starshina]

The drones still move it or not, it will still be destroyed ...

[Glory1974]

Here is the syllable

Well what can I say, thanks to the author for respect and kind words to readers.

because, as usual with us, 80% of the commenting mass did not understand anything, especially without complicating themselves with reading. However, the usual thing.

Perhaps I will refrain from commenting, or else they will write a third article

[max702]

Or maybe an BTR-87? Dimensions are sane, any engine can be shoved, there is a mine mine, internal dimensions are not bad, it can float, components and assemblies from the 80th

[prodi]

and if you straighten the board with additional protection and spit on buoyancy, generally moronic for heavy wheeled vehicles, then what the doctor ordered

[Bad_gr]

Quote: max702

Or maybe BTR-87?

What about the BTR-90? 8 tons more armor than 80s. Moreover, he was adopted, only the troops did not enter. The factory workers offered to re-arrange it in the manner of BMP-3, so that in addition to the side ones, they could also make an exit from behind, but the Moscow Region did not order them (the bosses, like boutiques, went to foreign exhibitions, choosing something imported).

[prodi]

there is still such a moment: the location of the landing above the second axis makes it more vulnerable to undermining; the front location of the MTO solves all the risks of frontal projection protection and a modest price. The only thing that seems still desirable is to move the driver from the first axis, at least to the second

[Bad_gr]

Quote: prodi

there is still such a moment: the location of the landing above the second axis makes it more vulnerable to undermining; the front location of the MTO solves all the risks of frontal projection protection and a modest price. The only thing that seems still desirable is to move the driver from the first axis, at least to the second

Once I watched a film about the creation of the BMP-3. It pays attention to things that you usually don’t think about. For example, according to technical specifications, the frontal armor was supposed to hold a 30mm caliber projectile. The BMP turned out to have a heavy nose. To balance it, the engine was moved to the stern. An amphibious assault landing was in the center of the vehicle, that is, the most comfortable place. If we take into account that most of the time armored personnel carriers are with people, it’s transporting troops to a given area, then landing in the center of the vehicle is a big plus (they get less tired).
BTR-90 built according to the same principle: a powerful forehead, an engine in the back, a landing force in the center. Evolutionary development of the BTR-60-70-80. Then managers came to the Moscow Region and put a fashionable rear door at the forefront, and removed the engine from there. And, if according to the technical assignment there is a requirement that the forehead would hold a 30mm projectile, and there is also an engine ahead, then with some crutches it is necessary to correct the balance of the car. One of the solutions - the main armament was shifted to the ass. I won’t be surprised if the turret is not located in the center of the longitudinal line of the hull, but is shifted to the left, since the engine compartment is front-right, and this must be somehow balanced. And it’s not a fact that the Boomerang on the water will not bury its nose until the landing compartment is loaded, since it is the same in the stern. And the fact that the Boomerang weighs 34 tons does not at all mean that the crew is better protected than the 24 ton BTR-90.

[prodi]

The balancing of the front-engine nose can be accomplished by strengthening the side armor of the landing (rear) compartment and its greater height to the main body, i.e. in a landing vehicle it’s more logical to do the opposite to the tank layout. Well, what is rocking is the least evil.

[starshina]

Can you check for yourself?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: prodi

The only thing that seems still desirable is to move the driver from the first axis, at least to the second

Two cars.

One has a V-shaped bottom (mine protection option). And the BTR-90, which is with a flat bottom. Pay attention to the length of the red lines. This is the distance from the site of the mine explosion and the car body. The greater the distance, the less the impact on the machine. And who will suffer more from a mine collision? If the explosion is in the center - again, our sediment is higher + double bottom, the space between the floor of the armored personnel carrier and the bottom is occupied by handout shafts, etc. + some other protection (mentioned in the BTR-90 advertisement)

[prodi]

I don’t want to compare these options, it’s obviously better that the driver doesn’t sit properly

,
but somehow

[Bad_gr]

Quote: prodi

it’s just obviously better that the driver doesn’t sit like that, but somehow

This is a Serbian armored personnel carrier "Lazar" and its driver sits in the same way as ours:

[prodi]

thanks, I know, I just didn’t find anything suitable for anyone to demonstrate the idea, I’m probably running ahead of the horse

[Bad_gr]

Quote: prodi

I just didn’t find anything suitable for anyone to demonstrate the idea,

The driver sits far away except for the GTK Boxer (Germany), but for floating armored personnel carriers this option is unlikely to succeed.

[prodi]

yes you are right and you couldn’t run ahead of the horse

but it’s clear where the legs grow from Boomerang

[starshina]

Which car will you choose Mercedes or Lada?

[DDT]

Beautiful beast! What kind of car?

[prodi]

which on the right is VBCI, then was Atom

and here it is, "the terror that flies on the wings of the night." Boomerang

[alexmach]

And what will he see then sitting there?

[Grits]

Quote: max702

Or maybe BTR-87?

That's just our Moscow Defense Ministry reacted very kindly to him and safely forgot

[starshina]

Dream grenade launcher ...

[georgigennadievitch]

It is not very clear why the "author" brought down his pathos on the RPG-7? During his service, he repeatedly fired from it (at the school, being a junior officer in exercises, etc.). It is more difficult to miss from it than to hit it. and non-application, but unprofessional conclusions.) In addition, no one equates RPGs with ATGMs. And the range and armor penetration are different. So, an infantryman (motorized rifle) in a trench or in an attack has to rely on himself, on what he has at hand - (RPG in each compartment), rather than waiting until someone from somewhere hits an armored target moving at him. And how the RPG "affects" the adversary, I had the opportunity to observe with my own eyes. Outside, there is a small hole in the tank turret, but a decent tuft is torn out inside Farewell to the crew. Therefore, abandon RPGs, inexpensive and reliable, especially against armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, carts converted from pickups, etc. it doesn't make any sense at all. This part of the author's text is an empty shaking of the air. As for armored personnel carriers, then in general it is necessary to decide on their function - is it something - a bulletproof and anti-fragmentation conveyor or some kind of combat vehicle with a claim to the functions of a tank? And so, who is against the new combat 57 mm, with modern ATGM modules, reliable anti-mine and anti-drone protection? More armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, good and different, but based on single platforms and modules and not very expensive.

[Strashila]

The military should answer this question, and what exactly is needed for the army. Everything comes from their requirements. What is the concept of application. Perhaps the good old BTR-60 may be in demand with improvements.

[hagen]

Quote: Strashila

Perhaps the good old BTR-60 may be in demand with improvements.

You are clearly joking!!! "60" no improvements will fix. He has outlived his time, finally, as well as the entire line of "60" - "80". And as for the improvements, I will say that it is often easier and more expedient to build a new one than to repair and modernize the old one. The fact that the car is needed more secure than the BTR-82XXX, I have no doubt. Whether it will be a boomerang or something else, but not what is being delivered in droves today. I don't agree with the author, though. I shot with RPGs (different) for 6 years, although this was not my main specialty. I will say this, putting a grenade at 300-400 m into the dimensions of even the BTR-60 for a medium-skilled grenade launcher is not a big problem. RPG - a weapon of African and Central Asian rogue? Reckless opinion. Despite the fact that in the conflicts of recent decades, it is these "rogues" who cause many problems to the "civilized". To pray at the RPG or not to pray - this is who will join which "party". Nevertheless, a simple infantryman in the footage of the chronicles does not have an ATGM behind his back, but a pair of something like an RPG-22 sticks out.

Quote: Strashila

What is the application concept

I would recommend to everyone who talks about the place of armored personnel carriers in defense and offensive to refer to the BUSV part 3. It is clearly seen there that from the front edge to the "rear" is only 200m, and this does not play a big role for the life of an armored personnel carrier with a crew. In other cases, I believe that in addition to security and mine resistance, the so-called. "situational awareness", in Russian - instrumental assistance in identifying dangerous targets.

[Strashila]

It's like looking. The body of the classic BTR-60 is open, simply speaking, the body, in which nothing prevents us from dividing it into control with the driver and landing, in the driver to make a double bottom and fill it with water (this is done in South Africa to dampen the blast wave), in the landing to install an additional " floating "armored capsule based on the air suspension from the truck.

[Tavrik]

In other cases, I believe that in addition to security and mine resistance, the so-called. "situational awareness", in Russian - instrumental assistance in identifying dangerous targets.

Absolutely correct. We can laugh at network-centric wars as much as we like, but if the crew of the tank, armored personnel carrier, etc. He knows that everything around him is done only from what he sees directly in front of him and hears in headphones - this is a deliberate loss.

[Tavrik]

The trouble is that military science, which should answer the question "what is needed", is absent.

[Genry]

Quote: Tavrik

The trouble is that military science, which should answer the question "what is needed", is absent.

You are like in the movies:
"Do you see a gopher? So I don't see it - but he is ...".
If you have not seen and do not know, then this does not give you reason to draw conclusions and declare them as a fact.

[Tavrik]

Of course, I have seen and know not everything .. but such peremptory statements can be made either by a representative of that very "science", or by a person who is extremely far from this problem.
Tell us, "the poor and the poor," which of the wheeled-tracked vehicles military science considers promising, and what is not?

[Nehist]

Um ... Dear Roman. If you fired once with an RPG-7, then you are clearly not a specialist, and you know how to manage to swing 300 meters ... Next ... An armored personnel carrier has never been considered a means of supporting infantry (for this, IFVs were created if you do not know ) In general, I still did not understand what you wanted to say in such a long article ?!

[The leader of the Redskins]

With tongue removed. Thanks for the wise words. And they ride on armor not only from behind mines, but because it is easier to dismount on an unshielded side and begin to organize defense, but in one or two hatch it does not work out. Checked and more than once!
And the TOU operator lives by logic even less than the shooter from an RPG.
In general, one "expert" answered another.

[Nehist]

One thing struck me ... At a range of a direct shot, miss a stationary target .... You need to be able to

[timokhin-aa]

Without experience - easy.

[V.I.P.]

In order for the ATGM operator to live longer and shoot more often, there is a javelin and a bunch of similar foreign products. He fired and changed his position))) ...... But do not shout that "Cornet" is the coolest on the planet. As soon as we can do something similar to a javelin (while slandering it now), they will immediately begin to write about the lack of analogues in the world)))) .. SU-57, Orion and the like as an example ...

[Nehist]

Um ... And then someone spoke about ATGM? Dear, read carefully! ATGMs and RPGs are generally different things

[V.I.P.]

Carl Gustav 4 generations are already experiencing with a homing missile, and not a grenade. Together with the Americans. A grenade launcher will fire an ATGM rocket. True range of this rocket is 1km. or a little further.

[V.I.P.]

Panzerfaust 3 and Karl Gustav 3/4 with a modern pizza and ballistic calculator firing range 800-1000 m ..... Realistically assess the position

[starshina]

And all in a single copy!

[garri-lin]

Riding on armor is elementary calmer. Sidish, cool head. "You cut the chip". You are responsible for yourself. Not dependent on anyone, but on the contrary, as if gape depend on you. More in case. And in the box there is nothing to keep your eyes and brains busy. You start to wind yourself up. This confuses the mood. Nerves burn.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

because it’s easier to dismount for an unshielded side and start organizing a defense

And shooting from 2 sides? how then to organize defense?

[The leader of the Redskins]

Well, Nikolaevich, there may be many options, you won’t foresee everything ... What if a special forces officer hooks magnetic mines through the sewer hatch to the bottom?)))

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

What if a special forces soldier hooks magnetic mines to the bottom through the sewer hatch?)))

A manhole on a dirt road in a wooded mountainous area? This is great !!! What harmful are these malicious saboteurs!

[BARKAS]

The clever fighter of the modern army with this thing may perhaps show something, but not for long.

This "short-term" is often enough.

[Amateur]

Wonderful! Only I did not understand what exactly was being discussed: the comments of the sofa iksperdov with the VO or the real characteristics of combat vehicles. If "iksperdov", then why discuss us. Everyone has their own correct opinion.
Well, if the real characteristics - then absolutely everything written in the article corresponds to the most fashionable modern trend “highly likely”.

[Dmitry from Voronezh]

Travel article. The advantages of the "Boomerang" over the BTR-82 are objectively described. What can you say? The main thing is that "Boomerang" still goes into series. Although now, during economic turbulence, there is little chance of launching a series. But I want to believe that in the foreseeable future the car will get into the troops, since there is a big need for it - people should be protected by increasing the level of protection on the battlefield.

[Genry]

Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh

Travel article.

Hack!
The author did not even look at the news on the Boomerang chassis.
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3982034.html

"Boomerang" has already completed preliminary tests, the results of which made some improvements. In particular, the armored hull has been slightly expanded, the displacement and, accordingly, the buoyancy of the combat vehicle will increase,” the military-industrial complex reported. The company added that as a result, “on combat vehicles capable of operating on water, it will be possible to strengthen the armor protection with additional attachments. "
In addition to increased buoyancy, the new hull will make it possible to more comfortably accommodate troops in full gear. "This will have a positive effect on the speed of dismounting the landing force from the car, and on reducing its fatigue during long marches," the press service of the "VPK" noted.

[svp67]

wheeled BTR K-16 and tracked BMP K-17

A photo of "TRACKED" K-17 is it possible? "Boomerang" is a heavy wheeled platform and on its basis are created armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, tanks, self-propelled guns and many other combat vehicles, but they are all wheeled

In general, the Boomerang can swim. But it’s better not to engage in this anachronism, but to develop more useful engineering troops in this regard, which can throw not only heavy equipment over the water barrier,

Yeah ... let's, following the example of the Indians, create mass equipment that will drive only where it is dry and into the water neither with a wheel nor a caterpillar. An armored personnel carrier, since the author came to the conclusion that this is just a vehicle delivering infantry to the front line, MUST swim. And it’s not worth entrusting everything to the engineering troops, in terms of overcoming water barriers. Someone, on something, should be the first to be on the other side to seize and hold a bridgehead. And it will be much better if this "something" has at least some kind of armor, more powerful weapons, an engine and high cross-country ability, and most importantly there will be a lot of them, so that more troops can be landed on the enemy coast in one "wave"

RPG-7 (as well as AKM) today is the weapon of an African rogue, a rebel in the jungle and a pirate on a longboat. The clever fighter of the modern army with this thing may perhaps show something, but not for long.

You can immediately see a "knowledgeable", far from a "couch" specialist ... once he shot from an RPG and "eyes opened."
The history of recent military operations shows that basically it is necessary to fight not on the front line with units similar to you, but semi-partisan armed formations with appropriate tactics of action. They hit the columns and there the grenade launchers work to the fullest.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: svp67

"Boomerang" is a heavy wheeled platform and on its basis are created armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, tank, self-propelled guns ...

[Free wind]

Our soldiers did not particularly rely on armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, they preferred to ride on armor. Many of us laughed at the Americans in Afghanistan, the very first mine and they will ride on armor like we do, but figs. Of course, you need a car with excellent mine protection, with excellent armor and landing from the stern. So far, we have nothing better than Boomerang. Multi-fuel, any diesel engine is able to run on diesel and kerosene. For petrol operation, the Fuel Start is changed. only now it works on gasoline, it does not last long, about 15-30 minutes. and the engine kryndets. By the way, the Germans probably spoke about strengthening mine protection for the first time when they encountered our mined dogs. The explosion took place under the fighting compartment of the tank. All with the upcoming HOLIDAY OF THE GREAT VICTORY!!!!! Peace and blessings to all!!!!!! And those who call for war, and all sorts of repeaters: execution on the spot from a slingshot in the balls.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Free Wind

the first mine and they will ride on the armor like we do,

They have at least 2 reasons not to ride on armor:
1. there is no armored vehicles with which you could jump without breaking your bones (all high),
2. If the insurance says that he must sit under the armor, the fighter will sit under the armor.

[pmkemcity]

Horses mixed in a bunch, people ...
The author, for the sake of his idea, puts the eighties in unusual conditions for it, and the boomerang, on the contrary, puts it in a favorable light.
1. A small war, for example, to clean up the nearest suburbs from the liberals. What technique is needed? What properties should it have? Motor resource - yes. Swim - no. Mine protection - yes. Protection against WMD factors - no. The presence of various kinds of expensive sensors - yes. The possibility of firing troops on the move - no. Quantity - sufficient to equip one division of them. Dzerzhinsky.
2. Big war in Europe. Everything is the opposite. Motor resources - no. Swim - yes. Mine protection - no. Protection against WMD - yes, from here comes the requirement to fire on the move, overcoming WMD contamination zones. The possibility of mass production in a war - yes, but realizing that there can be no production in a modern war, there should be a lot of these armored personnel carriers already in peacetime. and they must be repairable in the field. I would add something from myself that no water unit has, except for a motorized league (with an interference fit) - the functions of a mobile dugout (sleep at least sitting, or side by side, warm up in winter, etc., in general, "live" long days on the front line) .
We get two different armored personnel carriers - the counterguerrilla and front-line workaholic.

[DDT]

Quote: pmkemcity

2. Big war in Europe. Everything is the opposite. Motor resources - no. Swim - yes. Mine protection - no. Protection against WMD - yes, from here comes the requirement to fire on the move, overcoming WMD contamination zones. The possibility of mass production in a war - yes, but realizing that there can be no production in a modern war, there should be a lot of these armored personnel carriers already in peacetime. and they must be repairable in the field. I would add something from myself that no water unit has, except for a motorized league (with an interference fit) - the functions of a mobile dugout (sleep at least sitting, or side by side, warm up in winter, etc., in general, "live" long days on the front line) .

Well, about the unnecessary mine defense in Europe, it’s you, my friend, who got excited ... You’ll come to my simple European quarter without mine protection, you won’t leave it from me ... And at the same time I’ll control the RPG-7 ladies. European Srendesian rogue

[bk0010]

War - in Europe, which quarter? How to get there through the ruins?

[DDT]

Are you one of those who hope, after a nuclear, well, or at worst bio-chemical bombardment, for a walk on the healing waters of Nice? I hasten to disappoint, I have a basement. Without a direct hit, Iskander will not work ... So, whether through the rubble, whether along the paths, but without mine action, you will lie in cheerful shell-shocked stacks, but in Boomerang, in the BTR-80/82/87, how lucky

[pmkemcity]

Quote: DDT

...I have a basement.

Dude! Yes you are a hero!

[pmkemcity]

Quote: DDT

... I will give

This is your everything. Shut up and give. Wake up "besikami" waving in the windows meeting eighties.

[DDT]

Quote: pmkemcity

Shut up and give it.

Come over. Catch up, still give ...

[pmkemcity]

Quote: DDT

Come over. Catch up, still give ...

Racer! Learn this as our Father! Will have something to tell, getting out of his "dugout".

[DDT]

Judging by the photographs of pigs, and by the syllable baboon?
Shove propaganda further to Comrade Kiselev and Russian Spring.
All the best.

[pmkemcity]

It offends me that they are with us. not in europe or states.

I'm from Tashkent.

Nice water? I hasten to disappoint, I have a basement. Without a direct hit, Iskander will not work ... So, whether in the rubble, on the paths, or without a mine, you’ll be fun shell-shocked stacks

Cross yourself already! "Tashkent man" from Nice.

[Grits]

Quote: DDT

Come over. Catch up, still give.

Duc, they arrived already ... They set the flag - and vice versa. No one was catching up.

[DDT]

Quote: Gritsa

Quote: DDT

Come over. Catch up, still give.

Duc, they arrived already ... They set the flag - and vice versa. No one was catching up.

I didn’t want to offend anyone, but I would have to. Caught up and still gave WE. And for what we caught up and gave, our country is no more. There are debris. One is bigger than the other. But judging by the comments and this big wreck is no better than the rest.

[501 Legion]

just the same, instead of BTR82 it is very necessary, in general, that relic of the past should be left behind for a long time.

[Grits]

Quote: 501Legion

instead of BTR82, it’s very necessary,

And for me, it’s not INSTEAD, but ADDITIVES. The only question is - in one unit or in different purposes. Here I am not special.

[Nehist]

By the way, mine protection ... If this is an ambush, then mines are set to damage BT and where the infantry is not important. Bzik with mine protection is a goofy goob cut

[donavi49]

Well, look at 1000500 videos of explosions on IEDs. It looks like this, at night or during the day - all sorts of difficult kids, otherwise the men dig a couple of bags under the road. And after removing from the window / mound they undermine the report. As soon as they began to carry jammers, they switched to a wired system. While the dust settles, they jump into mopeds and in 10 minutes already in a neighboring village, with an alibi.

Those who faced such a war came to one conclusion - all columns must be saturated with explosion-proof transport. This solved several problems at once:
- minimization of losses during patrolling;
- inefficiency of the lungs of the VCA. To dig a small bag / bucket there - earlier it led to the failure of the equipment, to the wounded / corpses. Now this leads to a slight fright and after 10 minutes the convoy is already moving again.
- consolidation of IEDs, that is, 4-5 bags are already being buried under the report. And this is not to pull out of your pocket. And look for missing keys on the sidelines. That is, the chance to catch / destroy such bombers is significantly increased.
- for control forces, it is better if the cell lays one large landmine on the road than 5-6 small ones.

[Nehist]

N-yes ... How tired I am of template thinking ... Have you created at least one IED? There are no 5 bags ...

[donavi49]

Well now, for any Western coalition, the standard is the equivalent of 50kg + TNT of roadside prikop. I don’t remember the least in the news. When two Americans died in January, they claimed 150 kg in Oshkosh, injured in a trawl, and Oshkosh tore.

Cars were popular in Iraq - but that didn’t take root in Afghanistan. Rather, it took root in a peaceful place. The military developed tactics against this.

In Mali, cars are used for ramming attacks. VBSI incidentally at one time withstood a pickup truck.

[DDT]

Quote: Nehist

N-yes ... How tired I am of template thinking ... Have you created at least one IED? There are no 5 bags ...

I fully support. People do not know that in any box, after the explosion of a simple mine under the bottom, at least half of the passengers are precomatous, and the other half with fractures of varying severity. And when on the armor, nearby stunned are lying around ... But how should the soldier be protected?

[Lopatov]

Quote: donavi49

they switched to a wired system.

Wires are easily detected by related equipment

Quote: donavi49

Those who faced such a war came to one conclusion - all columns must be saturated with explosion-proof transport.

Not a fact.
Rather, "it is necessary to conduct normal engineering reconnaissance and conduct mine clearance". Georadars, special machines such as "Buffalo" with a "paw", robots with a manipulator and the like appeared.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Spade

Not a fact.
Rather, "it is necessary to conduct normal engineering reconnaissance and conduct mine clearance". Georadars, special machines such as "Buffalo" with a "paw", robots with a manipulator and the like appeared.

Probably still automated monitoring of communication lines would not hurt. For example, drones.

[hohol95]

One of the "Merkava 4" type vehicles hit a "barefoot" land mine with 400 kg in TNT equivalent. And there is no Merkava 4 tank.
Many forgot about mine clearance in the USSR after the war, the highway (forgot the name) from the canvas of which several wagons of German explosives were removed! If not right - correct!

[5-9]

Do you believe Javrei fables? Or about the 400 kg told hera laid them down? (mortgaged 100, 300 sold). Why lay 400 kg? Carrots and any other purpose and from a hundred tear. They had all the losses in 2006 solely from hitting a thousand Kornets ... Then the truth turned out that hez have mobile phones with cameras and carrying batteries and forgot about Kornetov’s mills.

[DDT]

Quote: 5-9

Do you believe Javrei fables? Or about the 400 kg told hera laid them down? (mortgaged 100, 300 sold). Why lay 400 kg? Carrots and any other purpose and from a hundred tear. They had all the losses in 2006 solely from hitting a thousand Kornets ... Then the truth turned out that hez have mobile phones with cameras and carrying batteries and forgot about Kornetov’s mills.

You read the comment. Equivalent Did you know that RDX, for example, is 4 times more powerful than TNT?

[hohol95]

As I understand it, with your LITERATURE "kepso" (bad) - Baryatinsky "Israeli tanks in battle"!
Are there any complaints about the mining of the Minsk-Moscow highway by the Germans?

[Ded_Mazay]

Quote: Nehist

Bzik with mine protection is a goofy goob cut

Tell this to the relatives of our ATVs who died in Afghanistan.

[Nehist]

I will tell you how to make cumulative from a land mine !!! Whatever v-shaped bottom will not save !!! And as for the dynamic impact on the armor, I am generally silent !!! All to that in nutra at least shell-shocked !!! How did you get the deletants

[Ded_Mazay]

There is something to say in essence, acre of their "professionalism" in the manufacture of cumulative mines

PS https://topwar.ru/25068-protivominnaya-zaschita-sovremennyh-bronirovannyh-mashin-puti-resheniya-i-primery-realizacii.html

[Nikolaevich I]

Fir-trees! The whole article is written in the form of a set of "quotes" from "Wikipedia" and Internet articles like: "We swam ... we know! But we will not prove anything ...!" ... For each "point" one can object ... but "the problem is ... is it necessary? The questions raised in the article have already" been raised, raised, pulled up ... and lowered and dropped in various articles! As our "predecessors" said...: "Let's argue about the taste of durian, which we have not tried! Evaluate the benefits of kava, which we have not drunk! Judge the effectiveness of a drug that we have not been treated with! Give a review of a film that we have not watched! If "answer" for each "thesis" of the article, then the comment in this case should take a lot of time from the commentator ... and if at the same time there is a feeling: 1. pouring from empty to empty; 2. crush water in a sieve ... 3. confuse a fork with a bottle ... 4. "oh, not Guy, Julius Caesar ... not Guy? - then I'd better go cook dinner while waiting for my wife to get home from work on the occasion of the end of the current working days and the upcoming celebration ... cognac is already prepared and tasted!

[Free wind]

I have not tried many wastes of organisms, and I do not want to try at all, and I do not advise anyone to try. If anyone wants to, stick your face in the latrine, eat what is there, and advise whether it is worth repeating. I’m somehow far from that.

[3danimal]

About TOU: it is being modernized, a tandem warhead with decent penetration, or a defeat of the target from above.
The control over the wires is automated (you just need to keep the reticle on the target), the operator does not unmask himself with laser radiation, which in modern warfare will cause the installation of a smoke screen, at least.

[Nehist]

TOU and RPGs are generally different types of weapons

[3danimal]

This is understandable, I'm talking about the "archaic" TOU.

[Lopatov]

Quote: 3danimal

the operator does not unmask himself with laser radiation

It does not matter. Most modern COECs use UV sensors. And without a "torch" ATGM does not exist.

[3danimal]

It’s safer for the operator, anyway. Fire will be opened to him (there are even options with an automatic turret to the source of half-light).
Laser response systems are cheaper and more common.

[Zaurbek]

And they forgot a moment: the technique for global wars (simple, cheap) and the peacetime technique for local wars are not the same thing ... But in any case, BTR82 should be treated with care.

[3danimal]

On the one hand, in the global war thousands of Stryker'o-in and Bradley of the latest modifications, Abramsov of the latest versions, hundreds (up to 1200) of which will have KAZ, and what is against them? Thousands of units of old equipment, or just a couple of hundred more or less modern (which will not change the general layout).
This is if assuming the start of a huge meat grinder on land ...
Fortunately, for her there are no goals, desires and means.

[Zaurbek]

In the global war on land, neither Bradley nor Abramsov will be enough .... even without KAZ.

[3danimal]

Suggest to use T-72 (without letters), T-62 and T-55? Against modern tanks? - Then you will need a lot of “cheap” crews, and even here there is no guarantee of success (the difference in efficiency is too big).

[Zaurbek]

If it comes to a major war, then very quickly it will reach the reserves of T55-64-72 ......

[3danimal]

Which will be no one to manage. There are few people :( And there will be even less.

[Freedim]

I think so .. Having a box of specialized tools, a certain type of work is faster and easier to perform than with one hammer. Of course, there will be additional problems with supply, repair and other disadvantages of the lack of unification, but for certain tasks, even one fighter who has not passed into the category of "cargo 200" will justify all the costs of training and the inconvenience of maintaining new equipment. No one is forcing us to abandon the old transporters, of which tens of thousands are marinated in "canned food". For certain tasks, where they will be more profitable, you can always uncover them.
shl. I do not believe in a full-scale war with "tank wedges" and other stereotypes .. and for local brawls, low-volume, expensive, but more advanced in terms of combat qualities, vehicles will be the best choice.

[3danimal]

You proceed from the considerations that the surviving fighter has real value for command. In fact, the more valuable is the inventory and equipment (it is better to keep the new one), IMHO.

[rocket757]

If you look for a rational approach, then one type of technique will not do NOW!
Universal in name, but it is not in any way, now shoving everywhere and everywhere, at least it’s not smart!
For each task, its own specialized technique !!!
Yes, it is difficult, expensive, tiring to maintain, maintain, use, but if it really saves the lives of fighters and contributes to the fulfillment of tasks, it must be done, it will have to be done!

[EvilLion]

And that means the grenade launcher is disposable, because the crew of the armored personnel carrier has optics and machine guns, and the pickup truck is not disposable and has machine guns on it. And running out of the stern at one point when ambushed, which will always be along the road, is much better than from the sides. However, it will be too late to run out there, which is why they ride on armor, that the infantry dismounts anyway with the start of the battle.

Mines are generally not considered seriously against the background of losses from other types of weapons. Yes, their effect can be reduced by simple means, such as hanging chairs to the ceiling, which is done even on a "tiger" without problems.

As for the weight of 30 tons, then, I'm afraid that here the author forgot one very unpleasant moment, the specific pressure on the ground. Unlike a loaded truck, an armored personnel carrier does not have a huge number of wheels that distribute its weight over a large area, while the failure of the road under equipment weighing more than 20 tons is not a rare phenomenon. And in fact, this is the maximum weight for "centipedes" on 4 axles.

Discussions about the engine and other things are meaningless, because no one bothered to increase the body a bit and stick at least a 500-horsepower engine, as on the BTR-90.

The problem is precisely that, in principle, the level of security between 15 tons, 20, or 32 will not change, just as the purpose of the machine will not change. But fundamentally, the availability of the machine can change, both in quantity, because twice as heavy equipment is more expensive in everything, both in creation and in operation.

[Couchexpert]

Fundamentally, the protection on a 30-ton BTR does not really increase. Here the task is at least reduce the likelihood defeat, and not completely eliminate it. This is impossible even on tanks of 70 tons. And if an aluminum basin makes it through literally everyone, then the 30-tonne holds
1. Shooting (existing and prospective). all-perspective;
2. DShK / Utes / Browning HB + large-caliber snipers based on their cartridges. all-perspective;
3. Shells automatic guns 20-30 mm with a good chance, although only in the forehead or at large angles / ranges;
4. Explosion of explosive charge under the body more weight/powerthan existing armored personnel carriers.

These are the key areas in which such technology is developing all over the world. This is something that has been missing for a long time, but could be improved. It is stupid, as in the comments above, to give examples of defeat from RPG / ATGM - the armored personnel carrier will always be vulnerable to them. He has such a fate (unless it is TBTR). After all, no one demands, for example, that planes be armored with cast iron (what if tanks break through to the airfield!)? While damage from the above means in modern combat much more likely and at least they try to minimize them.

A few words about the cross / buoyancy. I will say this: if, while moving behind the tanks, the armored personnel carrier gets stuck somewhere and falls behind, then in general it’s not a big problem, but if it overtakes the tank (having crossed something extra), then it will definitely grab everything that is due to the tank and not neither mass nor mobility will save. Where ALREADY didn’t drive / swam / crawled an armored personnel carrier tank, by definition, there is nothing to do. If we talk about conflicts of low intensity, then all the issues of ambushes / mines need to be solved by the complex interaction of the military branches, the design of the armored personnel carrier itself will not play a special role here: a V-shaped bottom, high suspension, special chairs, etc. help, of course, to some extent (and should be applied), but they will not completely get rid of losses.

[EvilLion]

30 mm shells can also penetrate 70 mm, this is, of course, the top for them, but 30 mm of armor can already be written off. As for aluminum, the density of aluminum is, as it were, 3 times less than that of iron, so on the BMP-3 of the same armor 40 mm protects itself, of course, this is not 40 mm steel, but you should not think badly about non-combustible aluminum alloys . But they are not suitable for tanks at all, it’s just that the size will be indecent if you make the equivalent of even 80 mm from aluminum.

In general, doubling the weight of the vehicle will in no way lead to doubling the armor, since the armored volume also increases. In the case of an armored personnel carrier, there is only an indulgence in the gun, which is the same on both the BTR-82A and the Boomerang. The latter will inevitably lead to the same question that arose regarding the KV-1, there are more problems due to weight, but the gun, the most important element, is the same. Why is it necessary? Now, if there is a transition to a larger caliber, but then the mass of the gun with ammunition will increase, as well as the volume of the fighting compartment under them.

But in general, the Boomerang will ride from above in the same way, more eyes, faster dismounting. In a big war, when the main problem will not be an ambush, where the maximum ATGM is, but enemy aircraft and artillery, and the order will move only inside, the defeat will be something like a "Hellfire". And he just doesn't care.

[Maks1995]

Good article. A little more numbers would be a comparison of cost, quantity. And that’s all. Ideal. Thank.

[English tarantas]

I would like to object to my thought on this topic.
Boomerang, of course, is good, BUT.
The ancestors were not fools, the author writes that in Syria and in the Donbass, the honor of the car was not useful for afloat. Yes, but if Syria is a trite desert, then in Russia there are simply unimaginably many rivers, and how many maneuvers were carried out in the Donbass? To drive along the roads to a city or village faster than the artillery covers to shoot back and also leave, this is not a march across an intersection if the enemy has a huge amount of weapons, they will tell me, saying: “But how will positive buoyancy save you from an airplane / helicopter? " - Yes, it will corny help save time on the way from point A to point B. Even I, living in an area that is not very rich in rivers, I can say that there are few bridges, their location is known in advance, but the rivers do not allow you to go straight where you need to, so as now to the question of weight - a stream knee-deep in depth will not allow cars of large masses to pass, but this is so, the lyrics, because the BTR-82 is likely to get bogged down, and the Boomerang has more specific power.
As for riding on the armor painted below and in detail, intelligibly.
As for landing from the stern, I personally think that you also need exits from the roof and an exit, at least 1 from the side, since corny can shoot at the machine from any side, and the side projection is still larger.
Mine protection as a mandatory requirement for armored personnel carriers is, in my opinion, not so important, I doubt that the regular army will lay powerful landmines, it has better means, even barmalei, as the author remembered, have been using anti-tank systems for a long time.
Therefore, I believe that Boomerang can not go into a series because of several questions:
1. It’s good to fight in Syria, but there are river houses. Therefore, buoyancy should be optional.
2. The mine base is certainly good, only the mass of the vehicle increases significantly, as well as the price, and whether the real enemy will massively use mine ambushes - I think not, but the APC will definitely be massive.
3. Size, yes, it’s not the main thing for a long time, because if necessary, they will hit, and they will see and extra even half a meter of height will give more survivability and ease of use than stealth. But we never forget that there are roads running under low contours of bridges, for a car you need to dig caponiers, look for shelters in which the car will not be seen, you need to drive along surfaces at an angle. And for all the benefits of high growth: the ability to install good mine protection, more armored space, better visibility, greater freedom for modularity, you should not get carried away with gigantism.

[NEXUS]

For the first time I agree with Buffoon. We need a boomerang, like Kurganets. But there is one very unpleasant question, since we need a lot of Kurgan and Boomerangs, and in the future, ideally, they should replace both Soviet-made armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, the price of these devices is multiplied by a series .

[Yrec]

The author made his "expert" conclusions by shooting once from an RPG-7 at a target at the training camp. And now, from the height of his invaluable experience, he pours mud on other, no less cool, "experts". And he doesn’t understand, sick, what is our brainless Defense Ministry not ordering Boomerangs (as well as Armata, Kurgan, SU-57, etc.) instead of BTR-82? I explain to my friend "expert" on my fingers. Suppose I need a car for a week (the approximate lifespan of an armored vehicle in a war), potatoes in the dacha have been born dofiga and it needs to be transported to the city along a country road. Let's assume that there is no other option than to buy a car. What will I buy for a week to transport potatoes from the dacha? Zhiguli or Mercedes? A week later, the car is still kirdyk for anyone. There is such an unfamiliar thing for "experts" as the economy of war. Without going into details, of which there are a lot, its meaning is to rivet more armored personnel carriers (infantry fighting vehicles, tanks, aircraft, etc.) than the enemy is able to knock out during battles. Practice shows that 90% of the cash fleet in parts of armored vehicles is knocked out in 2 weeks/several months of intense fighting (irrevocable, repair, it doesn’t matter now). If you do not start the reproduction / repair of armored vehicles in a short time in the required quantity, then the soldiers will have to fight on trucks and cars requisitioned from enterprises / individuals (greetings from a dumbbell). In the blessed West, on which our "expert" looks back, they see the logic of war as follows: we stumble on a weak enemy, we will not rock on an equal, and we will immediately surrender to a strong one. Their charters even provide for surrender. And they build their aircraft from this principle. Our methods of warfare are fundamentally different. And therefore, our General Staff proceeds from the fact that in the event of an attack on us, the enemy will completely exterminate our population, level settlements with the ground, there will be no "humane and enlightened liberation from tyranny". Therefore, in the short and medium term, our people will be driven on the BTR-80/82, BMP-1/2/3, T-72, bullets from AK, drag "urgent" and be in the mobile reserve up to 60 years. Something like this.

[Diverter]

You say it right! But! Do not you need to create new models of technology?

[LastPS]

It is necessary, of course. I don't think we can do anything. We need a series, a big series, otherwise it's all meaningless. Equipment needs to be produced in large batches, otherwise the price is prohibitive, and the number of flaws is huge. But, as they say, "there is no money, and you are burning in grandfather's armored vehicles." After WWII, the Soviet Union did not have armored personnel carriers at all, but the union somehow understood their need and began to make the corresponding vehicles, first the 152nd, then the 60th. And you know what's the funniest thing? For some reason, these machines quite corresponded to the modern trends of those years. And then a bunch of commentators pounce on Skomorokhov, shouting that world manufacturers don’t fumble, and mine protection and armor are a whim, and in general, a tough warrior doesn’t like hiding in an iron can. There is no money for boomerangs - that's all ... period. All these excuses of the 82nd are simply embarrassing to read.

[Diverter]

So to release a large series, can you release a small one first? to test, try, break in the troops, etc. But then, taking into account the identified shortcomings and Wishlist from the military and other things, again break in, test, and so on. And after receiving positive emotions from the army, launching it in a large series with sending the 60-80 family to storage?

[LastPS]

That's the way it is, but the tests are just, well, very much delayed. The boomerang was shown to the general public in 2015, by which time a series of several cars had already been released, nothing has changed in five years, things are still there. A very typical situation for all new samples of the Russian military-industrial complex, which, as it were, hints at a certain impotence of the industry. One gets the feeling that they can’t really bring anything to mind. On the other hand, the economic situation is the worst, as a result, the path of development is the gradual modernization of the existing ones with the passing refinement of new models, to the detriment of the latter. I’m not judging this approach of the Ministry of Defense, it’s just a pity that the troops don’t have very well-needed modern models of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, which would be very useful in Syria, where there are a lot of IEDs and automatic cannons - heavy machine guns. To hell with it with Armata, the T-72 modernized with its head is enough for local conflicts, but the difference between the new generation of armored personnel carriers and the old ones is much more significant.

[Diverter]

so fast, only cats will be born)))) better slowly and confidently than quickly like Italian armor. the very ones that are super cool, and then it turned out that the complete g ....

[EvilLion]

It is more likely that psychoses to replace Soviet developments in practice turn out to be psychoses.

[LastPS]

Your comment, in my opinion, is the only one that contains a rational grain. Unfortunately, I must admit that the absence of a boomerang in the troops is explained solely by financial considerations - our economy is at the bottom, but we need to arm ourselves somehow, so the modernized 72s and 82s go to the troops, according to the principle "better than it is now ". It's just an objective reality.

[Viktor Sergeev]

ZIS 2 was discontinued not because of excessive penetration, this is a myth, it was just a huge marriage in the production of trunks, well, we did not know how to make such long, rather low-caliber, there was not enough technology, but when I had to adapt, I had to adapt. It was because of the technological complexity of the ZIS 2 that they did little, even towards the end of the war.

[bars1]

Regarding the ZiS-2. The ZiS-3, during the period when the decision was made to withdraw the ZiS-2 from production, quite coped with the defeat of enemy tanks at acceptable distances. But because of their caliber -76mm., They were significantly superior in high-explosive fragmentation action to 57mm. projectile ZiS-2. Hence the great versatility of the ZiS-3. Also one of the reasons for the decommissioning of the ZiS-2.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: bars1

ZiS-3 at the time of the decision to remove ZiS-2 from production, completely coped with the defeat of enemy tanks at acceptable distances.

In theory. In practice, in 1941 and in the first half of 1942, the armor penetration of 76-mm divisional guns did not exceed 30 mm at 300 m. The reason is the extreme shortage of BR-350A armor-piercing shells and the use of shrapnel shells "on strike" instead.

Quote: bars1

But because of its caliber -76mm., Significantly exceeded the 57mm high-explosive fragmentation effect. ZiS-2 shell. Hence the great versatility of the ZiS-3.

Simply put, the Red Army had a choice: either to receive specialized anti-tank guns in relatively small quantities, or to receive three to four times as many divisional guns instead. Taking into account the fact that the reorganization of the withdrawn from the battles and the formation of new rifle formations proceeded in huge volumes, and it was impossible to send formations to the front without a base and firepower - artillery regiments - the choice between guns was obvious.

By July 10, 1941, 34 divisions were completely lost and another 87 divisions suffered heavy losses. From the beginning of the war until December 1, 1941, a total of 124 rifle divisions were disrupted and disbanded. To make up for this loss, it was necessary to carry out the formation of new units and formations on a large scale, providing them with the necessary weapons. It was also necessary to compensate for the loss of weapons in the troops of the army, so that they retain their combat effectiveness.

Even more significant was the need for weapons for new formations. So, already in July 1941 it was necessary to form 71 divisions (56 divisions and 15 cd), in August 110 divisions (85 div and 25 cd), and in October 74 rifle brigades.

© "Artillery supply in the Great Patriotic War 1941-45.

By the way, ZIS-3 appeared only in the autumn of 1941 - and these were two parties for military tests. And in the series in 1941 was F-22-USV and its simplified versions.

[Viktor Sergeev]

You are silent about Javelin, and why? Tou is outdated? Range 4 km. outdated? Maybe you consider it obsolete to guide the missile all the time of its flight and the type of operator is in danger? Well, there are remote controls. Interestingly, 30 seconds from a distance of 2 km. from the target, under fire, leaning out of the trench, in the presence of optics detection devices, looking at the target, being afraid to fart, so as not to start over, doesn’t bother you?
Speak RPG 7 is out of date? I would send you to the city on a tank, so that if you survive, you understand your stupidity. About the obsolete RPG tell the Israelis who burned perfectly from Merkava, though from the Vampire, but the meaning is the same: a grenade launcher against a tank.

[bk0010]

The main enemy of the BTR-82 is a colleague with either a heavy machine gun or an automatic cannon.

The main enemy of the armored personnel carrier is fragments of bombs and shells, it is from them that he must be guaranteed to protect.

Somehow, the crossing of the Rhine, the Oder, the English Channel has completely receded into the background, most likely, there’s no need to fight there.

And forcing the local govnotechka river is still relevant: we do not live in Syria.

And it is replaced by just such a heavy vehicle, capable of not only delivering infantry to the battlefield, but also actually supporting it with fire and armor.

Such a machine is called BMP. Boomerang is not heavy.

And Russian soldiers in Syria still ride "on the armor", and not inside it, because the fear of being blown up by a mine is more than getting a bullet from a sniper.

And they will ride on the armor: under the armor - sucks, regardless of its thickness.
PS A new APC is needed, the Boomerang is quite suitable.

[timokhin-aa]

And forcing the local govnotechka river is still relevant: we do not live in Syria.

Well, like this...

There are no fools in the Politburo

[Olgerd Gediminovich]

The criticism is quite detailed, I will not repeat myself particularly.
I can not pass by a few points:
1) no matter how good the Kurganets car is, the most important limitation for MO is cost.
Simple examples - IS did not replace the T-34. The FG-42 did not replace the Mauser 98k. For one reason, the disproportionate cost. If you can make 10 instead of one weapon for the same money, it is unlikely that the choice will be in favor of expensive models.
2) in addition to the cost, the life time on the battlefield is also important. Colleagues have already written about this. My SME, where I served (the western border of the GDR), was designed for 20 minutes in battle! The NATO tank division opposing it must be stopped for this time so that the tank regiment covered by us has time to turn around against it. After that, we have a kirdyk and the tank guys should have time to avenge us on NATO.
The training of personnel is much more important by 20 minutes than the sophisticated means of delivery to the front line.
Regarding the comparison of ATGMs and RPGs, I also add. If the battle is in an open field and the tank is one, then the ATGM steers unambiguously - for several kilometers you can unzip the tank before it detects the operator.
If there are a lot of tanks, or the collision is not in an open field, but on rough terrain, then mobile granule throwers are much more efficient. The position changes after each shot, without waiting for an answer, this is a no brainer.
Well, if the battle is in the village / city, then each fighter behind his back has a pair of RPG-26 / RSHG-2, or even more than something new. Although the old RPG-7 is not particularly worse. And not one tank / armored personnel carrier will fail.

[Diverter]

Dear!
in the previous comments, we have already sorted out the need for different types of BTT. but I would like to support the author on the one hand. Given that ... "women no longer give birth" as before, it is necessary to put into service new MORE protected armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. The life of a fighter is now much higher than in Soviet times. What will each of us choose? Move in Boomerang i.e. in a mine-proof armored personnel carrier and without the risk of a bullet from a sniper. Or on the armor of the BTR 80 with the risk of getting a bullet or a fragment from the explosion? The same armored personnel carrier 80/82 I would send exclusively into service with "light" divisions (I don’t like the word brigade in the military sense, let the locksmiths have it))). That is, in the mobilization units of the second / third echelon, as well as the military police and commandant's offices. There is a healthy grain in the article and basically the author's opinion is correct.
Author!
RPG-7 is a very formidable and good weapon! In capable hands! And in urban combat, this is generally a thing! You yourself write that there will be and are mostly urban battles! And so if you give a grenade to a monkey ..... For example, during the war between Egypt and Israel, the Union supplied air defense systems. So the Egyptians, after completing the training, were the first to overwhelm 4 of their aircraft and one of ours. Therefore, they later put representatives to them, because the Arabs could not understand why the rocket was shooting down their own.

[Sarcasm]

As for the estimates of RPG-7, the author got excited, but for the rest, he agrees, and no. MTO in front, armored personnel carrier booking is quite bulletproof from four directions (sides, roof and feed), but the forehead against a heavy machine gun, anti-mine bottom resistance. Ramp or hatches in the stern. Buoyancy, I think it will not hurt.

The Romanians re-arranged our BTR-70, what is the problem of doing the same if not during modernization, then it is not clear when manufacturing new BTR-82. We don’t have money for the Boomerang, as the author correctly noted, the money went wherever you want, but not where you need it, so now you need to face the truth, you just need it, cheaply and cheerfully.

[Alexey G]

I read the article, read the comments on the article. The article discusses the old as the world question of whether a new weapon is needed if there is an old and proven one.
The author believes that the new is necessary and in its own right is right.
The new weapon, as you know, overcomes the shortcomings of the old one, but of course it also acquires some shortcomings, because, as many commentators have noted, there is no perfect weapon! However, the enemy got used to our old weapons, he studied them in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, Syria and many other local conflicts and prepared tactics! Don't underestimate this! And the enemy has not studied the new weapon and he will have to adapt to the new reality incurring losses! This gives an advantage at the beginning of the conflict, which, if used correctly, should give an advantage and victory in the war. Especially when it comes to protecting soldiers. We must take into account the new realities, that is, the fact that our troops, for many reasons, have ceased to be so numerous as to sacrifice them as in the conflicts of past years. I will say even more boldly that manpower is acting more carefully and success is increasingly dependent not on courage but on the strength of technology.
The author is right that in a warrior and with modern weapons it is difficult to get into an old armored personnel carrier, and getting out of it in a battle in turmoil can be even more difficult, and riding all the time at the top, in rain, wind, frost, under enemy fire is not comfortable and dangerous, and of course high losses cannot be avoided here! The soldiers did not climb up in vain, not from a good life in an armored personnel carrier.
Of course, by negligence, the author touched on the issue of RPGs and it was for this that he received a bunch of criticism aside. But logically, the author follows the same line, which is that the new weapon pushes the old one over the side of history. Even the sharpest critics understand deep down that he is right. Rocket weapons have supplanted projectile weapons due to the fact that a rocket can be controlled in flight or it can do it itself, which gives it an advantage in flexibility and accuracy. Of course, in the future, guns may appear that can give a new impetus to the development of these weapons, but today ATGMs are superior to RPGs in terms of range and accuracy in combating armored vehicles. This does not mean that RPGs should be abandoned, but it should be borne in mind that you will have to fight not only with them, but also with ATGMs, for which a 20 cm silhouette is not such a problem! But KAZ and active protection are able to resist this!
In addition, modern warfare is a hybrid of the classic and guerrilla warfare, therefore mines are the main weapon of partisans and terrorists, which means that the protection of infantry from mines is an important indicator! It is possible that mines are more dangerous than RPGs and ATGMs, which have been little talked about!

[Inboost wett]

You forget that this new weapon is only for us. And for the "barmaley" it is no longer new. They have already well studied all the Western counterparts from which our "innovators" copy all this. I want to remind you that progress is a decrease in size with an increase in capabilities, and most importantly, this is not even a decrease in size, but a reduction in the crew. There is neither one nor the other. However, as in the "new" tank.

[Alexey G]

Firstly, our modern technology is not a complete analogue of the western one! This is overkill!
No one has such an active defense as we have in the West! Afghanite, like the very idea of ​​active protection of armored vehicles, is also ours, and not Western! Israel has copied it with us! And now the Americans are trying!
Armaments at Boomerang are all domestic with a 30-mm automatic cannon 2A42 with selective ammunition (ammunition of 500 rounds), a 7,62-mm PKTM machine gun (ammunition of 2000 rounds) and two twin launchers of the Kornet anti-tank missile system.
32-stroke diesel engine UTD-510TR with a turbocharger capacity of XNUMX liters. with. at the same ours.
Which NATO machine did we copy it from? With an American Stryker?

And that they are twin brothers in your opinion?
Ours weighs 34t, and the Stryker 18T! At Stryker, our armor is homogeneous in our multilayer! Continue to continue?
Well, the engine is now in front of us, and the rear landing is like that of NATO so what? This is bad?

And for the "barmaley" it is no longer new. They have already studied well all Western counterparts.

And where are the barmaleys smashing the American and British armored personnel carriers? And who teaches them this art?
Are they not NATO experts? I can only recall Yemen and Afghanistan, but our equipment has passed the school of execution since the time of Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Iraq!

I want to remind you that progress is a reduction in size while increasing opportunities

Well, let's actually. By size:

See for yourself where the progress in aviation has gone. SU is bigger than old propeller planes!
Now tanks

The tanks became larger, certainly in length!
Weapon

increasing opportunities ???
So it just often requires an increase in size! Or do you want a washing machine and a spacious bathroom measuring one and a half meters! Opportunities require a place or the magic of designers who cannot always do this!
Reducing the crew is certainly good, but I remember how in the war with IL 2, the shooter at the rear was removed to reduce weight, and received fewer defense opportunities at the rear, and as a result, they increased the number of shot down ones, here you have the opportunities! Reducing one we reduce the other!
And progress is determined not by absolute values, but by the enemy’s ability to withstand!

[Thunderbolt]

So, gentlemen, couches, with all my heart I wish you to check on yourself how it is, an RPG against a tank.

It depends on the ammunition you use, although you don’t understand such a promise to become behind an armored personnel carrier ..

they are by no means fools in a tank or infantry fighting vehicle, and they probably know how to use optics, cameras, thermal imagers and, most importantly, machine guns! And for their part, they will do everything so that you get the idea that the idea of ​​firing an RPG from a tank is not the best.

Therefore, you need to be a round idiot and shoot at armored vehicles from one position! And in advance or according to the situation, changing the position is not fate at all, what the la?)))

Yes, K-16 is very good in terms of growth, that is, height. Higher tanks are obtained. Many drew attention to this. And besides, heavy, 32 tons.

The height is a twofold thing --- its combat module is also placed higher than the classic Russian armored personnel carriers --- and this is a definite plus. Shelling --- the landing party dismounts and begins to embrace the enemy in pincers. The armored personnel carrier /// if it has not lost mobility /// changes its position and supports the landing force with fire. The firing sector at its height will be larger than that of our classic armored personnel carriers. __________________________________ As for the rest, I agree. We even have non-modernized armored personnel carriers in the boxes of ms and other brigades. I think that they need to be changed to "Boomerang" as soon as possible.

[Operator]

In the matter of choosing an armored personnel carrier, you must either remove the cross (use of an armored personnel carrier in the first line of attack) or put on your underpants (combat weight at the MBT level - which is possible only if there is a caterpillar mover).

And without it, all such articles remain at the level of transfusion from empty to empty.

[White AK]

I really needed it, I was not very comfortable at 80, knowing that the line of PCMs would put us all in it, and the RPG is really bad, especially since the speed of aiming KPVT with manual drives is very long and extremely inaccurate, especially on the move

[Interdum_silentium_volo]

I'll start with the Main idea: the Ministry of Defense, choosing equipment and purchasing, does not proceed from the formula "the best", but from the formula - "I can afford it."
So the BTR-82a is a vivid demonstration of the "I can afford" formula. The goal is to put all the infantry on equipment, so that it can be maximized mobility. You can put on a super modern BMP (BTR) and, as a result, have 1-2 mobile brigades, or to put on cheaper simple but many times more brigades. And here you need to look for a balance between quantity and quality!
War is not the action of one tank or soldier, but the interaction of a squad-platoon-company-battalion-brigade, etc.
Better by itself "Boomerang"?!?! Of course yes. Is the best option for the army?!?!? And here there may be a sudden answer "No", and in order to give it you need to have information, and not to assume by "news "and" I heard ".
The article has a lot of emotions and saliva, but a little constructive. The author crossed the line, and switched to personal insults. And he adjusts the facts a lot, as he is comfortable.

On the issue of RPGs, neglect of it can only be from a small mind, as soon as a tank (infantry fighting vehicle, armored personnel carrier) enters a settlement, the advantage in firing range is sharply reduced, and the opportunity to get shot on board only increases. Speaking of infantry that covers, you need to understand how much it can really control, if the tank is moving along the street where it is surrounded by 5 floors, you will need as many infantry to guarantee safety as you will not have.

On trips on armored vehicles, everyone has already said well, but I’ll add that in the armored personnel carrier that riding inside the BMP is not a pleasant activity, and it’s not safe. Especially considering that the infantry is fighting dismounted from equipment, and not in armor, and even less so on the armor.

And I agree with the author about the height and dimensions, in conditions when ATGMs are commonplace, and especially modern ATGMs that hit from above. The value of dimensions on the "strike" is not necessary, if it does not apply to transportation by plane, by train, where there is a strict framework of what is permitted.

P / s: "In my understanding, that the armored personnel carrier (82a) and the infantry fighting vehicle (2) have long turned into the same thing. Where is the goal to bring down and support with fire. And a compromise option when there is a universal box that holds 12,7mm in a circular (again why not 7,62 by 54 in the sides, yes, because right now the Yankees are trying on a machine gun under 338LM and what is holding 7,62 by 54 (51) in the sides right now will not be able to handle 338 tomorrow), it has the ability to hang various attachments of armor from remote sensing , to ceramic-metal increasing resistance in miraculous miracles right up to 30mm in the front projection. And, depending on the goals and tasks, various combat modules: self-propelled gun, self-propelled mortar, self-propelled ATGM, self-propelled MANPADS, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, etc. "

And considering that right now there is:

[demiurg]

The author is confused in the evidence and facts. When it comes to height, it is immediately recalled that this machine will not fight. When about weight and weapons, this armored personnel carrier should go almost ahead of the tanks.
BTR new need. But what is needed is an armored personnel carrier, and not a mixture of MRAP and a light tank.
A wheeled infantry fighting vehicle, which, due to its size, does not live on the battlefield, Russia needs a fifth leg like a cow. There was a development of a heavy wheeled infantry fighting vehicle. The military didn't like it. This is normal, in the USA heaps of projects are rejected, but in our country they immediately began to erect a wall of whining, with the obligatory mention of cuts. Well, for some reason he also brought in temples, Serdyukov remembered. Mixed in a bunch of horses, people.

[mister-red]

My colleague Krivov and I were given a try two years ago. In the exercises where we shot. Misha - the layout of the tank, 300 meters to her. The briefing was. All showed. Well, we fired, in accordance with the information received. Of course not. But they had the notion that after such a shot they won’t let you get another one, if only the mentally retarded are on the other side.

From this point on, I stopped reading. I explain. He served in the Marine Corps as a grant-maker. We had RPG-16s that have now been withdrawn from service. They shot a lot, for each shooting 3 shots. Shooting for the service was no less than 10, faster more. The standard target for shooting is moving, I don’t remember the exact distance, but almost the maximum for this RPG, that is, no less than 600-700 m. And imagine, after several shootings, a hit from at least the second shot. 35 years have passed, but even now I will hit the window of a high-rise building from 1/2 km from the second shot. The first shot is always needed to correct. For 300 m at a fixed target, even now I would not need a second one.
So try on a grenade launcher after a short briefing is at least have a strong conceit.

[demiurg]

He imagined himself an expert-publicist-pravdorub. Second Timoshkin. But Timoshkin knows what he is writing about, although he is quarrelsome and touchy.

[TatarinSSSR]

I highly doubt it. 300 meters is three football fields. 1/2 km is five hundred meters and 5 football fields. Are you on the football field at one gate, do you see the goalkeeper very close at the other gate? Without optics, from a hundred meters, you won’t get single-handedly from Kalash while standing. What are you telling fairy tales about distances of 300 meters or more with RPGs out the window? Next, the second shot after the first sighting? Who will let you shoot a second time just like that in a battle or ambush? If such "storytellers" served in our Marines, then it's a little unclear how they took such people there ....

[Olgerd Gediminovich]

I’ll intercede for the Marine.
RPG-16 - weapons of the Afghan Airborne. Now, unfortunately, is outdated.
The RPG-16 has optics as well as the RPG-7 with a multiplicity of 2.7. Plus bipod. Sighting range 800 m.
On a moving tank at 500 m it will work out easily. 600-700m - only for experienced grenade launcher.

You talk about Kalash in vain, dear. When I was still a snotty cadet, a machine gun crew and an arrow (two emerging targets) were regularly placed on the UKS, which is 200-250 m on the runwithout standing! These targets have always been the easiest to shoot. The next one is a grenade launcher (250-350 m), you shoot from the knee. And the most difficult thing is a moving group of infantry (350-450 m) (two full-length moving targets), you shoot lying down. And this is without optics, of course, from the AK-74. At the end of the service, he changed the usual machine gun to a night one with a NSPUM sight with a magnification of 3,5. I performed the same exercise at night jokingly. The platoon commander experimented with my barrel - he removed the life figures at night from 600 m. The SVD snipers were jealous.

So what about football fields is in vain.

[Olgerd Gediminovich]

Small comment:
Afghan Airborne Forces - meant those who performed international duty.
And yet: UKS is performed only in queues. Single fire is prohibited. So on the go and in short bursts. For all three purposes - 35 rounds.

[TatarinSSSR]

You are apparently a unique person who shoots a squirrel in the eye from a guard. But I have personally seen for 7 years and I know how the servicemen of our respected army shoot at the firing ranges, from motorized rifle conscripts to reconnaissance contract soldiers. And it's not at all as smooth as "snipers" like you are describing here. They hit the target at 200 meters (PR) from the second magazine with short ones, and even then not all of them. The machine gunners emptied 80% zinc into milk again. And this is in complete calm, without the influence of enemy fire. And this is considered the norm there, "all the same, there will be no type of war on a large scale with anyone, but the MTR and aviation will cope with a trifle." You know, according to my passport, my car must go from zero to a hundred in 9 seconds. He's only a month old. And it takes 12 seconds, they spotted it on purpose. So you can write anything. But the realities are different. And yes, putting a huge RPG-16 fart on a bipod, with a PGO-16 is not at all a shot from an RPG-7 or a fly with a bar.

[Olgerd Gediminovich]

Sad to read. Is everything really so bad now?
He himself served more than 30 years ago.
Wasn't the smartest.
My crew got deuces, it happened, especially at night. From the "Thunder" to the BMP-1, the gunner often had to aim at the barrel. This did not add accuracy and rate of fire. On training machines, the sight, then the electric drive did not work forever.
The battalion commander had a common practice - Losers from the shooting range walk to the location on foot (they dragged weapons and boxes with training materials on themselves), the rest went to the "Ural". The shooting range is 15 km away. If they shot at night, then the Losers only returned in the morning, they did not have time to sleep.
A couple of times, too, had to stomp in this way.

[Hog]

Quote: Olgerd Gediminovich

1) no matter how good the Kurganets car is

And what does "Kurganets" have to do with it if the article is about "Boomerang"?

[Olgerd Gediminovich]

Sorry, wrong.
But this also applies to Kurganets.

[TatarinSSSR]

The author, how do your phrases relate in one story?

Machine gun? Well yes. But not a very accurate weapon.

...........

getting through an armored personnel carrier from a machine gun or cannon is much easier than from an RPG. And from a greater distance. And on a moving target

??? The rest of the article is also not very robust.

[FRoman1984]

Author, arrogance and arrogance more than knowledge. You didn’t get out of the RPG and you think that others will not. Everyone here calls you sofa experts.
Ever heard of the word "economy"? Do you understand why neither the Su-57 (which is without engines), nor the Armata, nor the Boomerang, nor the Kurganets, nor other "products" are needed by the Ministry of Defense? Because at a higher cost, efficiency has not grown much. Because two Su-35s are better than one Su-57. And three BTR-82As are better than one Boomerang. That's all. And the Ministry of Defense thinks very simply - that the BTR-82AM, that the Boomerang will burn out during a week of intense fighting in any case and no matter how - a mine or an RPG or due to a breakdown, damage will leave it. And it's better to have 3 cars instead of one. Everything goes exactly like this.

[5-9]

Boomerang is definitely needed. He's definitely better than 82 ki. But not instead, but in addition. We don’t just have infantry (except for mountain parts), but only motorized rifles. To put everyone on the Boomerangs and Kurgan residents, the navel will be untied. But there are no millions of armies, the value of each soldier has grown significantly.

[Sancho_SP]

A lot of beeches, but there are essentially:

1. The "big war" in the knightly style, such as wall to wall in the field, is unlikely to happen. The war between China, Russia or the United States will be atomic in any case, and the military aggression of one of the heavyweights against the countries will not be weaker than the "big" one.

2. With a mass of 32 tons and a cannon from the BMP-2, I would not be in a hurry to record this product in an armored personnel carrier. Or then it is necessary to "write out from the BMP" all BMPs, except for Armata.

3. So why is this toy better than the BTR-82? Mine resistance, convenient entry, patency (?), Electronics (which can be crammed into armored personnel carriers), reinforced armor. OK. And now what of this is fundamentally more necessary than a “conveyor coming from behind”?

[Dm_2]

Quote: max702

Or maybe an BTR-87? Dimensions are sane, any engine can be shoved, there is a mine mine, internal dimensions are not bad, it can float, components and assemblies from the 80th

Cheap and cheerful.
- there is a ramp
- 12.7 mm in a circle holds
- 23 mm in the forehead holds
- there is already some kind of mine protection

Definitely better than BTR-82A

[LastPS]

Definitely better, but release 82nd. In a good way, the BTR-90 should have been like that, and it was it that should have been produced, not the 82nd.

[Grits]

Quote from: Dm_2

Definitely better than BTR-82A

You forgot that, unlike the BTR-82, it is still additionally equipped with 2 ATGMs

[grumbler]

Congratulations on Victory Day! Peace to all.
A million times have already been discussed: the army needs 2 lines of vehicles - "heavy" tracked and "medium" wheeled.
At the same time, wheeled vehicles must also have high security. Gone are the days of WWII, when mass losses were "acceptable" (it was possible to carry the wounded on an open "lorry" under fire or when the Americans landed in Normandy and when the ports of the landing barges were opened, blood poured from there, because machine-gun fire pierced them through and through) . The concept of saving people rules.

As practice shows, wheeled armored personnel carriers often perform police / anti-terrorist / peacekeeping "functions. That is, there is a great threat of a landmine explosion, a suicide attack on a car, and now homemade drones have also been added. Therefore, MRAP. The equipment will be larger and more expensive (all this multi-layer composite armor, Kevlar anti-fragmentation lining, active protection,
automatic fire extinguishing systems, sly suspension chairs instead of the usual "benches"; living conditions must be acceptable). The wheeled APC is a well-protected "off-road bus". For a "police / peacekeeping" vehicle, a high profile is not a hindrance.

For the Army, this is a good "platform" for highly mobile protected grenade launchers / modular rocket launchers / electronic warfare / command and control and intelligence / medical / transport and evacuation and resource-supplying vehicles, etc. In the "military" version, you need a "combat module" (heavy machine gun or small-caliber automatic cannon, automatic grenade launcher, ATGM (to protect against tanks in case of accidental contact)). Plus, a developed system for setting up a smoke screen / radar screen / fired off heat traps, under the protection of which you can hide or land troops.
(by the way, for police / peacekeeping purposes, the "ink cloud" is also very important - as a non-lethal means of self-defense and dispersal of excited crowds).

And let me look at the wheeled armored personnel carrier slightly from a different angle. Correct me, but in my opinion it is traceable a clear tendency of an ever wider involvement of the Army in the peaceful tasks of the Ministry of Emergencies, medicine and the police. The epidemic has shown it. Those. The army will gradually merge with the Ministry of Emergency Situations and become "universal self-defense forces." This will give the military constant training in real, not field conditions. It will greatly improve the effectiveness of interaction between civilian and military structures (which is important both in emergency situations and in wartime). It will facilitate the exchange of experience, methods and "best practices" between the military and civilians. It will greatly increase the level of trust and respect for the Army among the people (wars on their territory, thank God, do not happen so often, and climatic and environmental disasters, epidemics are not uncommon). This can provide very significant budgetary savings where duplication can be eliminated, for example: civilian and military specialists can use the same resources: logistics facilities (aircraft, airfields, tractors ...); machinery and equipment (often it differs only in color); training centers, simulators and training grounds ... And just the Army will bring everyday benefits in peacetime.

Therefore, army wheeled armored personnel carriers will often be used to evacuate civilians from zones of genocide and hostilities, from emergency zones (natural disasters, epidemics and man-made disasters). For the transport of people requiring special protection (prisoners, judges, politicians). In particular, to work in the areas of man-made disasters (chemical, radiation) functions of the RBCP, they also need full-fledged "military" ones (only change absorbers from all sorts of "mustard gas / phosgenes" to ammonia, etc. Or install closed-loop systems. This is solved by modularity, unification and pairing compatibility). For transportation in crisis situations of goods that require protection: especially dangerous substances (chemicals, bio-materials, isotopes), collection of valuables (money, works of art).
And since the functions of the Ministry of Emergency Situations (floods), then it must be able to swim.

[About 2]

The author will start with the fact that the Tou ATGM and RPG 7 are two different classes of weapons, and although Tou is not much more modern than RPG 7, it surpasses the latter in power. the operator controls the target. As for RPG 7, you talk like a couch amateur who was given one shot from this weapon without training. For your information, I inform you that our motorized rifle units are armed for the most part with this weapon and the modern range of ammunition for it allows you to deal with infantry and tanks and lighter armored vehicles of the enemy. Against tanks, grenades PG 7VL, PG7VR grenade with a tandem warhead that allows you to deal with tanks equipped with dynamic protection, TBG 7 anti-personnel grenade with a thermobaric warhead, an approximate analogue of RPO A Shmel and OG 7 V grenade with a fragmentation warhead. The photo showed a breach on board the BTR 7, which was left by the TBG 80 grenade, is very impressive, especially considering that
anti-personnel grenade. Now about the Americans, if in your words an RPG is a rogue weapon then why is the US Army armed with an RPG AT4 made in Sweden and a Swedish made RPG analog with a rifled barrel recoilless gun Carl Gustav? Why does the German Bundeswehr have an RPG panzerfaust 3 ?

[Ovsigovets]

Distracting from all the calculations of those who understand the technical component of the topic as an ordinary layman, I want to note - it is very ANNOUNTING when they roll out to the Parade, loudly saying that here it is miraculously wonderful and the best, and soon our soldiers will ride it soon ... then more they show and tell for 5 years (let ... we wait making a discount on tests) .... and then herak "but we don't need it and we buy what was" ...... why are you 5 years old pouring money into your ears and squandering the sovereign’s money if this is not it again ????? There are already 82 thousand BTR-82 / 1,5A (I don’t presume to judge whether they are bad or good) ... there are still 1,5 thousand BTR-80s (a reserve for modernization for young technicians) .... In short, there is something to SWIMMING if they want to . Decide already, develop and put in the troops .... sick of

[grumbler]

on Ovsigovets May 09, 2020,
I fully support you. The defense-order kitchen should remain behind the scenes. Received by the troops? - roll out to the parade: this is what our Army is armed with.

And promising samples can be advertised at bright presentations (see how they furnish it in the USA, cod is cleaner than any other parade), war games and exhibitions (Pariot Park?). Except, very extreme cases of desperate bluff (as was done in the 50s in the USSR), when it was necessary to scare the adversaries, although only a few were made.

And how insulting the engineers are when they design for years (!), And then bam!
"It's too expensive and abstruse. You can make a weapon of the 60st century out of this" reliable and proven design of the XNUMXs. And it’s good if they don’t transfer work to competitors. And the company's accountants have hair on end - what should we feed them on? - contracts over the years "ate". The office goes to the bank for loans, and then it takes years to get out of them. What kind of "R & D and innovation" is there, would praise money for salaries to a shrinking team (old people drop out, young people dump).

[Eugene - Jhonny]

It’s somehow not smart ...
The author proposes to actively invest in the development of all types of weapons and ... do not give a damn about the patriotic education of youth and respect for the folded heads and officers for their homeland, for Russia ?! !!
I understand correctly?
And who will control these supernova weapons if worthy sons and daughters of the Fatherland are not brought up, ready to sacrifice their lives to protect their homeland. And where can they kneel down - parents, friends, fellow soldiers, brothers and sisters and pray for the souls of the innocently killed defenders of Russia if temples, churches and mosques are not built?
Something like this ...

[Ded_Mazay]

Unfortunately, the opinion that this is all window dressing, drank and in general an imitation of violent activity is quite common. It's a pity.

[Rome]

The technique must be modernized during the life cycle, but you can’t drag out the life cycle! A whole era has passed since the creation of the BTR82 in technology, the time has come to create the next generation car! But there should be a Boomerang, or something else, the main thing that would appear in a timely manner!

[Konatantin 1992]

What is there to think, sharpen the fads ... BTR 82A cheap modernization of existing, outdated BTR 80, that's all. There is no money for Boomerangs and Kurgans - get an armored personnel carrier 82, everything is better than nothing. What is there to talk about? what is better, what is worse, what is better now ... There will be money (never most likely) then the troops will receive modern equipment. All.

[cultural post]

“In general, the Boomerang can swim. But it’s better not to deal with this anachronism, but to develop it...”
Crossing rivers, no matter how anachronistic it is, is a good thing. And it’s not about the Rhine, but about our own theater of operations. But this is not the main thing, and the main thing is landing from the ramps of landing ships. Vehicles of the armored personnel carrier/infantry fighting vehicle class must also be able to be quickly delivered, since these are the main vehicles that ensure the survivability of the infantry in principle, and ammunition, and special equipment, and anti-aircraft shots, and provisions and again ammunition.. Here, I think, there is nothing to argue about. So it’s good that the K-16 did not completely lose its buoyancy.
Regarding the 57 mm caliber, it also seems promising to me. But of course, the number of shots is frustrating. This probably needs to be improved. As well as for the 7,62 paired with it. Although, maybe it would be more correct to install a removable 12,7 CORD.
But these are just remarks; it seems to me that the question of replacement is essentially not worth it. Of course the troops need a new car. The question of size is not significant at all, be that as it may, you still can’t get away from ordinary army trucks like the KAMAZ and Ural Taufuns, and even the previous ones. And for some reason no one pays attention to their size. As a result, the vehicles of the "BTR" family, no matter how you twist them, are intended to transport infantry, but today, not only are they not very far from the BTR-60, but even the BTR-152. (yes, comfort, a more convenient door, into which at least the fighter’s boots do not need to be pushed, this is all known, but still.)

[Temnukhin Anton]

Good afternoon friends!

I’ve been reading articles on this site for a long time, and finally I got around to it and registered.

The article is interesting, many thanks to the author for the unusual presentation and lively style!

In general, it’s hard to disagree. All other things being equal, it is better to have a “thick-skinned” car than a bulletproof tin. However, the mention of “Baikal” seemed strange to me. Some time ago I read an interesting article about this module. Let me briefly retell it. As far as I remember, this module with a 57 mm gun was developed on its own initiative, that is, the Ministry of Defense did not order it, and therefore did not feel any particular need for it. It seems that having 57 mm instead of 30 mm should be nice... However, Google suggests that the rate of fire of the Baikal is 120 rounds/min, while the 2A72 produces 330. There is an opinion that this will affect the anti-aircraft capabilities of the vehicle. After all, the probability of hitting a high-speed maneuverable target by firing three times as many shells (and 30mm is quite enough to make any helicopter or attack aircraft sweat) will still be higher... The author of that note also spoke cheerfully about the power system " Baikal" and scolded the crazy developers who will now try to attach their brainchild somewhere and the quartermasters who will master the budget for the introduction of a new caliber if the module is adopted... And it’s probably better to “offend” tanks from the ATGM, which It is also included in the machine.

Everything I wanted to say, I said. Thank you for attention. Continued success to the author!

[Sckepsis]

soldiers on the march will invariably climb onto the armor

And so it will be on Boomerang. In general, the entire article is a complete bastard of the author.

[Pamir]

I agree with Per se. I’m presenting it as a version. What is an armored personnel carrier in general? Is it an armor-piercing ram? Is it required to hold a direct 155mm artillery piece, or TOW2, in the forehead or on the side? Guys, this is the same as putting chain mail on an infantryman with all the shock-absorbing pads from toe to top weighing about 150 kg and in dimensions twice as large as the fighter himself, to withstand a 14,5 mm blow. The question of relevance, how many will pull this on themselves? My opinion, an armored personnel carrier is a transport, and only in exceptional in case of fire support. The type 80 armored personnel carrier has no place in the first line, so you won’t get any vehicles or people. When designing an armored personnel carrier, the condition is NOT to keep it straight above the 14,5 caliber, the body only protects from bullets and shrapnel, and this is very NOT enough. On During the war, soldiers need something to deliver, in the Second World War, regiments of soldiers tramped tens of kilometers to the front line, it’s preferable to go. Plus, in an armored personnel carrier you can transport additional ammunition, or AGS, grenade launchers, flamethrowers, provisions, and this is valuable. Another point, and why did many people get it is it safer to go back? And flanking fire from the flank? Where to go? Cover yourself with the back door? No way back is needed, but from the sides it is definitely NOT superfluous. The fact that landing on armor is due to the conditions of the war, if mine partisanship, then on armor is in the right place, especially since not even a tank’s armor will withstand any mine. For some reason, many are betting on an armored personnel carrier meeting with a grenade launcher crew, although in essence this should be an exception. If so, then the Jewish “40-ton Azharite” will be hit by the native “Cornet” will not hold up. Plus, during development, the condition is always set that our armored personnel carriers must be suitable in size for transportation by rail, planes and ships. Any development of armored vehicles is a compromise of the price/effectiveness ratio. Both the BTR90 and the Boomerang are excellent vehicles. The Boomer is probably preferable to 57mm and something built-in like the AGS40 for firing along a mounted trajectory. The 90th is quite a 30mm cannon and a machine gun, quite a combination, for three 90s, the fourth in a combination is one “Boomer”. And they can’t sit 80% on armored personnel carriers, on They ride around in Hummers.

[IL-64]

The author himself confirmed that you must be able to shoot from any weapon. And it seems strange to assume that a professional sniper is more likely to miss armored infantry than an incompetent grenade launcher. Childish resentment towards a user who wrote about an RPG. What if the distance is not 300 m, but 50? Will the Boomerang be better than the BTR-60 and its “children”? Then he writes about Tou and others like him. What, will Boomerang be better against Tou and Javelin? Will motorized rifles also ride on armor to the dismount line? The author does not understand that the tactical situation when a column is marching through unfriendly territory and a full-fledged war is going on are different situations? Although, in reality, we will never see pictures from old exercises (tanks, tanks, tanks and, in between, infantry chains with armored personnel carriers furiously firing machine guns) in reality, I think. I would say this: modern equipment is needed, of course, but there are situations when both old and modern means of delivering infantry to the battlefield will burn with equal success. And an RPG with modern shots in capable hands is quite a weapon.

[Usher]

For example, V-shaped bottom, initial mine protection

How does it protect against mines? Mines are usually hidden on the side of the road, and from the side this shape will make the situation worse. Swimming is the most important thing for armored personnel carriers.

[serg2108]

Well, finally, at least one of the authors of a respected site has written everything correctly about these machines! the analytics are not much lame, but in general the author is right! almost always during the second Chechen war we only rode on armor; in military warfare, during a combat mission, climbing out of an armored personnel carrier was still a pleasure in full combat! It was always easier with armor!

[sara.tzin]

[media=warspot.ru/17601-stels-bombardirovschik-b-21-uskoryaetsya]

[Zaurbek]

We need armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles more than Armata. The security of old cars is clearly weak and so is their carrying capacity. Along with armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, vehicles based on them are also needed. Howitzers, mortars, medical, reconnaissance anti-tank vehicles.....

[Sergei N 58912062]

I agree with the author of the article 100%!